Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

dimanche, 30 mars 2014

Revue Conflits: que veut Poutine? ...

Revue Conflits : que veut Poutine? ...

Le premier numéro de la revue Conflits, dirigée par Pascal Gauchon et consacrée à la géopolitique vient de sortir en kiosque. Une belle initiative à soutenir !

Conflits 1.jpg

Présentation de la revue Conflits

Pourquoi une nouvelle revue de géopolitique ?

La géopolitique est à la mode. Peut-être trop. Peut-elle échapper au règne de l’immédiat et à la superficialité ?

C’est ce que nous espérons faire à Conflits. Nous entendons apporter une réflexion de fond sur cette discipline qui constitue d’une certaine façon la culture générale de notre époque, ce qui nous permet d’avoir un regard synthétique sur le monde.

Pour cela nous voulons faire de Conflits le carrefour de toutes les géopolitiques, celle des universitaires, celle des militaires, celle des hauts fonctionnaires, celle des entreprises, car la géopolitique ne se réduit pas aux relations entre Etats.

Le « manifeste pour une géopolitique critique » que nous définissons dans le premier numéro fixe nos principes d’analyse :

- géopolitique du temps long qui se méfie des émotions immédiates,

- géopolitique du terrain qui assume ses liens de filiation avec la géographie,

- géopolitique globale qui étudie l’ensemble des forces à l’œuvre, politiques, économiques, sociales ou culturelles,

- géopolitique réaliste qui se méfie des bons sentiments,

- géopolitique du soupçon qui cherche à déceler les intérêts à l’œuvre derrière les discours…

Principes fondateurs : Fondée sur des principes solides, Conflits n’est cependant pas une revue destinée aux seuls spécialistes. Nous entendons attirer à la géopolitique non seulement les étudiants, mais aussi le grand public averti. Notre présentation en témoigne, mais aussi l’originalité de beaucoup de nos rubriques : « grande stratégie» qui présente la géopolitique d’un Empire ancien, «géopolitique fiction » qui imagine l’avenir à partir d’un événement possible (pour ce numéro, la tentative d’annexion de Taiwan par la Chine), « tourisme géopolitique» qui présente une grande ville sous l’angle de son rayonnement et de sa puissance, « polémique » qui défend une thèse inattendue voire paradoxale à laquelle nos lecteurs peuvent réagir sur notre site Internet.

Conflits présente ainsi un visage original et attrayant de la géopolitique. Elle entend démontrer que la géopolitique est partout (une rubrique qui apparaîtra dès le numéro 2), que partout le rapport de forces structure l’espace, de la maison familiale à la Lune en passant par les stades comme par les musées. C’est une autre façon de voir le monde que nous proposons à nos lecteurs.

L'équipe de Conflits:

L’équipe des rédacteurs comprend une quinzaine d’auteurs permanents, pour la plupart jeunes enseignants auxquels s’ajoutent des militaires et des cadres d’entreprise. La moyenne d’âge de ce «noyau dur » est de 34 ans. Ils partagent la même conception de la géopolitique et sont en relation permanente. Plusieurs articles sont le fruit d’un véritable travail d’équipe, ainsi la chronologie qui figure au début de la revue.

Conflits fait par ailleurs appel à des spécialistes pour des articles précis et interrogent des personnalités reconnues de la géopolitique.

C’est ainsi qu’interviennent dans le numéro 1 Yves Lacoste, « père de la géopolitique » française, François Godement, spécialiste de la Chine, Pascal Marchand, spécialiste de la Russie, Xavier Raufer, spécialiste de la criminalité internationale, Pascal Lorot qui a popularisé la notion de «géoéconomie » ou Christian Harbulot, créateur de l’Ecole de guerre économique.

 

Au sommaire du numéro 1 :

Editorial

Actualité 

Enjeux

Entretien. Yves Lacoste

Polémique. Barack Obama, un grand président ! par Thomas Snégaroff

Portrait. L’inconnue Xi-Jinping par François Godement

Afghanistan. Les Américains ont-ils mieux réussi que les Russes ? par Mériadec Raffray

Afrique. Guerres ethniques ou guerres religieuses ? par Mathieu Lhours

 

Histoire et prospective

Grande stratégie. La géopolitique des Chevaliers Teutoniques par Sylvain Gouguenheim

Bataille. Koulikovo : la Russie sort du bois par Pierre Royer

Encarté

Dossier

Eurasie. L’Europe doit-elle regarder à l’est ?

Lu, vu, entendu, visité

Le nouvel ordre américain

Livres

Revues, colloques, sites

Cinéma, séries, jeux

Géotourisme. Berlin et la nouvelle puissance allemande par Thierry Buron

West’s antiquated unipolar world collides with the East’s vision of a mulipolar future

politique internationale, occidentalisme, atlantisme, russie, états-unis, occident, multipolarité, unipolarité,

Tony Cartalucci

West’s antiquated unipolar world collides with the East’s vision of a mulipolar future

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

In Reuters’ 2007 article, “Putin says Russia threatened by ‘Unipolar World’,” Russian President Vladimir Putin stated: 

Some people are constantly insisting on the necessity to divide up our country and are trying to spread this theory.”

Reuters would also quote President Putin as saying: 

“There are those who would like to build a unipolar world, who would themselves like to rule all of humanity.” 

While Reuters then attempted to spin the comments as Russian paranoia, in the wake of recent events in Ukraine, the timelessness and accuracy of President Putin’s assessment years ago are apparent. 

 Setting the Board 

For years the West has been cultivating a proxy political machine inside of Ukraine for the purpose of peeling the nation away from its historical and socioeconomic ties to Russia. The deep relationship between Western corporate-financier interests on Wall Street and in London and the opposition in Ukraine are best summarized in PR Weeks “Analysis: PR gets trodden underfoot as sands shift in Ukraine.” In the article, the involvement of some of the most notorious corporate lobbying firms on Earth, including Bell Pottinger and the Podesta Group, are revealed to have been involved in Ukraine’s internal affairs since the so-called “Orange Revolution” in 2004 – a coup admittedly orchestrated by the West and in particular the US government

The article chronicles (and defends) the continuing, unabated meddling of the West up to and including the most recent turmoil consuming Ukraine.   

PR Week’s article revealed that heavily funded networks propping up the proxy regime in Kiev are sponsored by “individuals and private companies who support stronger EU-Ukraine relations.” It is these Western corporate-financier interests, not Ukrainian aspirations for “democracy” and “freedom,” that kicked off the “Euromaidan” mobs in the first place – and will be the driving force that misshapes and deforms the regions of western Ukraine now overrun by the West’s proxies. 

To the east in Ukraine, people are prominently pro-Russian, sharing closer cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic ties to Russia as well as long historical parallels. They have welcomed moves by Russia to counter the coup in Kiev and protect eastern Ukraine from the corrosive influence that will grow as the West further entrenches itself.  

A democratic referendum held on the Crimea peninsula overwhelmingly chose independence from the fascist regime in Kiev, separating from the now dysfunctional and downward spiraling western region and beginning the process of formally joining the Russia Federation. This resulting lay of Ukraine will be a proving ground where in the West, Wall Street and London’s unipolar order, will face off against the East and Russia’s vision of a multipolar order. The predictable outcome of financial and social ruination in the West, versus a stable status quo in the East will vindicate the growing perceptions held regarding both. 

The Predictable Fate of Western Ukraine Already Unfolding 

With the vacant chair of deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych still warm, the tentacles of Western corporate-financier interests have already wound themselves around Kiev and have begun to squeeze. 

Chevron, which had signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Ukraine in November, 2013, was operating in the west of Ukraine, and alongside other Western energy giants such as ExxonMobil and Shell. The deals were part of President Yanukovych’s apparent gravitation toward the West and impending integration with the EU which was then suddenly overturned in favor with re-cementing ties with Russia. Western oil giants clearly saw the benefit of backing a putsch that would leave the western half firmly in the orbit of the US, UK, and EU. They can not only continue their business on the western edge of Ukraine, but expand their interests unabated across the country now that a capitulating, puppet regime sits in Kiev.  

While Western big-oil plans to move in and siphon billions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is already planning deep cuts in social benefits as part of a staggering austerity regime to restructure financially the seized western region of Ukraine, and if possible, all of Ukraine proper.

RT reported in its article, “Pensions in Ukraine to be halved – sequestration draft,” that:

The self-proclaimed government in Kiev is reportedly planning to cut pensions by 50 percent as part of unprecedented austerity measures to save Ukraine from default. With an “empty treasury”, reduction of payments might take place in March. 

According to the draft document obtained by Kommersant-Ukraine, social payments will be the first to be reduced.

The proxy regime set up in Kiev has already indicated its eager acceptance to all IMF conditions. The fate of western Ukraine will be no different than other members of the European Union preyed upon by the corporate-financier interests that created the supranational consolidation in the first place. The reduction of a multipolar Europe into a unipolar, supranational consolidation which can be easily and collectively looted is a microcosm of what the West’s Fortune 500 plan as part of their global unipolar order.  

The natural resources, human capital, and geopolitical advantages found within the borders of Ukraine, will now become the natural resources, human capital, and geopolitical advantages of Chevron, BP, Monsanto, a myriad of defense contractors, telecom corporations, and other familiar brands seen marauding across the planet leaving in its wake destitution, socioeconomic disparity, and perpetual division they intentionally sow in order to protect their holdings from any form of unified or organized opposition.   

No matter how obvious the West’s game may be to some, had Ukraine fallen entirely under the control of Western interests, a multitude of excuses could and would have been peddled to explain the unraveling of Ukrainian society in terms that would exonerate the corporate-financier interests truly driving the crisis. But Ukraine has not entirely fallen to the West, and because of that, the planned decimation of western Ukraine, its economy, and its sovereignty will stand out in stark contrast to the eastern region that has remained beyond the West’s reach and within the orbit of Russia’s multipolar vision of the future.  

 The East’s Chance to Showcase a Multipolar Future

The West has made an entire industry out of “democracy promoting,” or in other words, the facade and insidious geopolitical mechanics behind it, it spreads its hegemony across the globe with. It has ingrained its superficial and ultimately disingenuous definitions of “elections,” “democracy,” and “freedom” into the minds of millions through political movements, mass media, and entertainment. However, this facade in recent years has suffered many setbacks as its opponents poke holes through it and reveals what lies beneath more clearly. 

What must be done next is the introduction of a new set of principles by which the global population can embrace – that of a multipolar world order where power is balanced, national sovereignty reigns, and international institutions mediate, not dictate, the interactions and conduct between nation-states. 

Unlike the West’s unipolar order which depends on the massive and perpetual manipulation of public perception to maintain itself, a multipolar world must be promoted through transparent, demonstrated examples. Russia’s evolving relationship with Ukraine, particularly in the midst of the recent turmoil in Kiev, will help demonstrate both the folly of dealing with the West and its global supranational consolidation and the benefits of maintaining traditional, sovereign bi-lateral relations with other states.

Already, Russia has exhibited crucial differences in its foreign policy – its stationing of troops in Ukraine already covered under long-standing treaties and their mission clearly provoked by documented extremists admitted even across the Western press as being armed and promoting universally unacceptable and dangerous ideologies rooted in racism, bigotry, and genocide. 

While the West eagerly traverses the globe thousands of miles from its borders, under patently false, fabricated pretenses (such as in Iraq) to execute military force against nations that posed it no conceivable threat and in hindsight its motives being clearly self-serving, Russia has waited perhaps too long to act directly along its own borders against clear and present dangers being fomented overtly by foreign interests openly seeking to encircle and overrun Russia itself

This difference in foreign policy and indeed in the vision the West and East hold for the future – one of unipolar global domination and the other of multipolar coexistence – will be tested in Ukraine in front of the world. While the West has little choice but to continue along its long-established trajectory toward confrontation and exploitation, Russia and its growing list of allies has an opportunity to offer an alternative, not only to solve its own problems along its border – but for other nations as well chaffing under the growing disparity created by the West’s antiquated paradigm.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”

samedi, 29 mars 2014

Gelekt gesprek op YouTube: Turken plannen false-flag aanslag om Syrië aan te vallen

erdogan.jpg

Gelekt gesprek op YouTube: Turken plannen false-flag aanslag om Syrië aan te vallen

De Turkse premier Erdogan probeert al sinds het begin van de Syrische crisis een voorwendsel voor een oorlog te creëren.

Uit een gelekt gesprek tussen hoge Turkse militaire- en politiek leiders blijkt dat de regering Erdogan een false-flag terreuraanslag wil plegen, die als voorwendsel moet dienen voor een aanval op Syrië. Het gelekte gesprek is op YouTube te beluisteren, wat dan ook de echte reden was waarom Erdogan onmiddellijk de toegang tot YouTube en Twitter in Turkije liet blokkeren.

Enkele passages uit het onthutsende gesprek:

Minister Ahmet Davutoglu: ‘De premier heeft gezegd dat deze aanval (op de Suleiman Sah Tombe) in de huidige samenloop van omstandigheden als een goede gelegenheid voor ons moet worden gezien.’

Hakan Fidan: ‘Ik stuur vier van mijn mannen uit Syrië, als dat voldoende is. Ik zet een reden voor een oorlog in scene door bevel te geven voor een raketaanval op Turkije. We kunnen ook een aanval op de Suleiman Shah Tombe voorbereiden, als dat nodig is.’

Feridun Sinirolu: ‘Onze nationale veiligheid is een ordinair en goedkoop binnenlands beleidsinstrument geworden.’

Yacar Güler: ‘Het is een directe reden voor oorlog. Ik bedoel, wat ze gaan doen is een directe reden voor oorlog.’

Feridun Sinirolu: ‘Er zijn een aantal grote veranderingen in de wereldwijde en regionale geopolitiek. Het kan zich nu naar andere plaatsen verspreiden... We krijgen nu een ander spel... ISIL (islamisten in de Levant) en al die organisaties zijn extreem gevoelig voor manipulatie. Als de regio bestaat uit vergelijkbare organisaties, houdt dat een vitaal veiligheidsrisico voor ons in. Toen wij als eerste Noord Irak binnen vielen, was er altijd het risico dat de (Koerdische) PKK de boel opblies... Als we de risico’s grondig overwegen en onderbouwen... zoals de generaal zojuist heeft gezegd...’

Yacar Güler: ‘Meneer... daar hebben we het net over gehad. Openlijk. Ik bedoel dat de gewapende strijdkrachten bij iedere verandering een noodzakelijk ‘werktuig’ voor u zijn.’

Davutoglu: ‘Natuurlijk. Bij uw afwezigheid zeg ik altijd tegen de premier... dat je in die gebieden niet zonder harde kracht kunt blijven. Zonder harde kracht kan er geen zachte kracht (diplomatie) zijn.’

Kortom: NAVO-lid Turkije zoekt naar alle waarschijnlijkheid met medeweten en instemming van de Amerikaanse regering Obama naar een excuus, een false-flag aanslag of operatie, om een oorlog tegen Syrië te beginnen.

Premier Erdogan noemde het lekken van de ‘vergadering over de nationale veiligheid’ op YouTube ‘oneerlijk’ en ‘schurkachtig’, en liet de toegang tot de videosite blokkeren.

Enkele dagen geleden zocht Turkije ook al een excuus voor een invasie door een Syrisch toestel neer te halen en vervolgens te hopen op een escalatie. De Syrische president Bashar Assad trapte daar echter niet in. Het lijkt echter een kwestie van tijd voordat Turkije, de NAVO en de VS voor een false-flag operatie zorgen, en dit in de Westerse media zullen verkopen als ‘onaanvaardbare Syrische agressie’.


Xander

(1) Zero Hedge / Infowars

Rusia, Crimea y un baño de Realpolitik

por Santiago Pérez 

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Ultrarrealismo en la crisis ucraniana y en la política internacional de hoy.

La caída de Víktor Fédorovich Yanukovich al frente del gobierno ucraniano generó movimientos en la estructura de poder de la más alta política internacional. Con su alejamiento, Moscú perdió un confiable aliado, quien protegía sus intereses y mantenía al país del este europeo bajo la esfera de influencia del Kremlin. El asenso de Oleksandr Turchínov a la presidencia y su intención de acercamiento a occidente dispararon, en forma virtualmente automática, los mecanicemos de defensa rusos.

No quedan dudas que el proceso interno ucraniano se vio de alguna forma influenciado desde el exterior. Se trata de un país estratégico tanto para la Unión Europea como para la OTAN y la Federación Rusa, tres poderosos actores que, como es de esperar, mueven sus piezas dentro el tablero geopolítico mundial. Pero, al mismo tiempo, sería impreciso adjudicar en forma excluyente a estos jugadores la crisis interna del país. Las diferencias culturales que conviven en el seno de la sociedad ucraniana han alimentado innegablemente las tensiones. En Ucrania hay quienes desean acercarse a occidente y hay quienes desean acercarse a Rusia, elementos suficientes para generar un conflicto, más allá de lo que hagan o dejen de hacer las potencias extranjeras. En definitiva, el fin del gobierno de Yanukovich puede definirse como un fenómeno multicausal, impulsado por fuerzas tanto internas como externas.

Pero más allá de las idas y vueltas de la sociedad ucraniana, el hecho relevante de esta crisis para el análisis de la política internacional es la rapidez, efectividad y contundencia con la que ha operado el Kremlin. Sin prestar mayor atención al derecho internacional (como es esperable de cualquier gran potencia) y a pocas horas del cambio de gobierno en Kiev, fuerzas especiales rusas “ocuparon” en una acción unilateral la estratégica península de Crimea. La relevancia de la cruzada para el equilibrio político regional ha colocado a ucranianos y rusos en el centro de la escena global. Todos los actores de peso dentro del sistema internacional están hoy con la mirada depositada en Crimea.

¿Ha actuado Moscú dentro de la legalidad? ¿Es este accionar legítimo? Desafortunadamente estas son preguntas que poco importan al momento de leer el escenario en cuestión. La anarquía del sistema internacional y la lógica ultrarrealista de Vladimir Putin han permitido que, de facto, sea Rusia quien ejerza la soberanía sobre Crimea. Los reclamos de occidente y del flamante gobierno ucraniano difícilmente puedan superar la etapa retórica o argumentativa. No hay nada que hacer para la Unión Europea, Estados Unidos, el G7 o la mismísima OTAN: los rusos han desembarcado y no se apartarán. La defensa de la base naval de Sebastopol es un tema demasiado delicado para los intereses geoestratégicos de Moscú como para colocarlo sobre la mesa de negociaciones. La única forma de desplazar a los rusos sería por la fuerza, pero los costos de intentar semejante acción transforman a esta alterativa en absolutamente inviable. Nadie en Washington (y posiblemente en ningún lugar del mundo) está pensando seriamente en una acción militar.

Al no ser reconocido ni por occidente ni por la propia Ucrania el referéndum celebrado en la península funciona principalmente como un elemento de presión política. En los hechos, Simferópol dejó de responder a Kiev inmediatamente después de la ocupación rusa, situación anterior a la votación que supuestamente aportó legitimidad y legalidad a la escisión. En otras palabras, con o sin referéndum, la anexión ya se había materializado.

Más allá de reconocerla diplomáticamente o no, las potencias occidentales acabarán por aceptar de hecho la soberanía rusa sobre Crimea y diseñarán sus estrategias de defensa en consecuencia. El statu quo regional se ajustará naturalmente a las nuevas circunstancias y las Relaciones Internacionales continuarán su curso.

Ya lo dijo el canciller ruso, Sergei Lavrov. “Crimea es más importante para Rusia que las Islas Malvinas/Falklands para Gran Bretaña”. Un mensaje conciso, de alto contenido político y emitido en el idioma que solo hablan las superpotencias. Cuando de intereses estratégicos se tarta, el poder (por sobre la legalidad) es lo único que realmente importa.

Fuente: Equilibrio Internacional

http://twitter.com/perez_santiago
http://facebook.com/lic.perezsantiago

vendredi, 28 mars 2014

Deutscher Altkanzler Schmidt zeigt Verständnis für russische Krim-Politik

Deutscher Altkanzler Schmidt zeigt Verständnis für russische Krim-Politik

Thema: Die Zukunftsentscheidung auf der Krim

 
MOSKAU, 26. März (RIA Novosti).

schmidt-helmut.jpgDer deutsche Ex-Bundeskanzler Helmut Schmidt nimmt die Wiedervereinigung der ukrainischen Schwarzmeerhalbinsel Krim mit Russland verständnisvoll auf und hält die westlichen Sanktionen gegen Moskau für dumm. 

Das Vorgehen Russlands auf der Krim sei „durchaus verständlich“, sagte Schmidt der Zeitung „Die Zeit“. Dagegen kritisierte er das Verhalten des Westens im Krim-Konflikt scharf und bezeichnete die Sanktionen der EU und der USA gegen Russland als „dummes Zeug". Weiter gehende wirtschaftliche Sanktionen würden ihr Ziel verfehlen und „den Westen genauso wie die Russen treffen“.

Auch kritisierte Schmidt, der 1974 bis 1982 Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland war, die Entscheidung der G7, die Zusammenarbeit mit Russland einzustellen. Die G8 sei in Wirklichkeit nicht so wichtig wie die G20, bei der Russland weiter Vollmitglied ist. Die Situation in der Ukraine ist laut Schmidt „gefährlich, weil der Westen sich furchtbar aufregt.“ „Diese Aufregung des Westens sorgt natürlich für entsprechende Aufregung in der russischen öffentlichen Meinung und Politik.“

Die politische Krise in der Ukraine war eskaliert, nachdem das Parlament (Oberste Rada) am 22. Februar die Verfassung geändert, Staatspräsident Viktor Janukowitsch für abgesetzt erklärt und einen Oppositionspolitiker zum Übergangspräsidenten ernannt hatte. Oppositionsfraktionen stellten eine Übergangsregierung.

Von Russen dominierte Gebiete im Osten und Süden der Ukraine haben die neue, von Nationalisten geprägte Regierung in Kiew nicht anerkannt. Auf der Schwarzmeer-Halbinsel Krim stimmten mehr als 96,7 Prozent der Teilnehmer eines Referendums für eine Abspaltung von der Ukraine und eine Wiedervereinigung mit Russland. Kurz danach unterzeichneten Russland und die Krim einen Vertrag über die Eingliederung der Halbinsel in die Russische Föderation. Die USA und die Europäische Union verhängten daraufhin Sanktionen gegen Russland. Unterdessen haben Tausende Demonstranten in mehreren Großstädten der Süd- und Ostukraine ein Referendum nach dem Vorbild der Krim gefordert.

jeudi, 27 mars 2014

Lo que se juega Alemania en Rusia

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

6.200 empresas alemanas comercian con Rusia o han realizado inversiones en el país y 300.000 puestos de trabajo alemanes dependen del negocio ruso. La inversión germana en Rusia se cifra en 20.000 millones, por eso la aplicación de sanciones contra Moscú tendría consecuencias desastrosas para la primera economía europea.

Como es habitual antes de la celebración de un Consejo Europeo, Merkel ha comparecido ante el Bundestag para dar cuenta de las negociaciones que se llevarán a cabo en Bruselas. Pasados los peores batacazos de una crisis económica que Alemania todavía no da por superada y con una Unión Bancaria en ciernes, el grueso de las conversaciones de la cumbre de marzo se centrará en la gestión de la crisis abierta en Ucrania.

Los socios europeos encaran este encuentro dispuestos a aplicar la tercera fase de las sanciones contra Rusia, que se extenderían al ámbito económico. Este es un paso que Berlín observa con preocupación y que Merkel ha intentado evitar por todos los medios insistiendo en sus últimas apariciones públicas en que, de forma paralela a las sanciones impuestas, debe permanecer abierta la vía del diálogo. Sin embargo, en su última intervención, este jueves en el Bundestag, la canciller ha abandonado el discurso tibio de los últimos días, llegando incluso a dar por suspendido temporalmente la celebración del G-8.

En la crisis ucraniana Angela Merkel está jugando un papel principal, actuando como mediadora ante Moscú para evitar un agravamiento de las relaciones entre este y oeste. Sus constantes comunicaciones vía telefónica con Vladimir Putin también habrían servido para templar los ánimos del sector empresarial, preocupado por las consecuencias económicas que podrían derivarse de un aislamiento de Rusia.

En Berlín, la crisis abierta en Ucrania preocupa no solo por la dependencia energética de Moscú -Alemania importa de Rusia el 35% del gas que consume- sino también por sus enormes intereses empresariales en el país. Alemania tiene mucho que perder si se materializa una espiral de sanciones económicas contra Rusia.

6.200 empresas alemanas comercian con Rusia o han realizado inversiones en el país y 300.000 puestos de trabajo alemanes dependen del negocio ruso. El volumen comercial bilateral se sitúa en los 76.400 millones de euros, con exportaciones valoradas en 36.000 millones e importaciones en 40.400 millones. En total, los alemanes han invertido en Rusia 20.000 millones de euros, según ha confirmado recientemente Anton F. Börner, presidente de la Asociación Federal Alemana de Comercio Exterior y Al Por Mayor (BGA), en un encuentro con medios extranjeros en Berlín, entre ellos, la Cadena Ser.

Rusia es el undécimo socio comercial de Alemania, un país al que la locomotora europea exporta, sobre todo, bienes de consumo de alto valor, maquinaria, productos electrónicos y coches. De aplicarse sanciones contra Moscú, la economía alemana podría resentirse en 2014. "Calculamos que las exportaciones alemanas aumentarán un 3% y las importaciones un 2% este año, por lo que se daría una balanza comercial con un superávit de 215.000 millones de euros, unos planes que se podrían ir al traste en caso de la crisis en Ucrania continúe escalando", señala Börner.

En su opinión, la crisis abierta no debe solucionarse a favor o en contra de Rusia, sino "con Rusia" y teniendo en cuenta que el recrudecimiento de las relaciones también afecta a los intereses económicos rusos en Europa. No en vano, Alemania es el tercer socio comercial de Rusia y las exportaciones de energía de Rusia suponen más de la mitad de los ingresos públicos del país y un 25% su PIB. "Más de un 80% de las exportaciones de energía rusas van a parar al oeste, el volumen comercial de entre Europa y Rusia es de un 1% del PIB de la UE mientras que supone el 15% del PIB ruso", recuerda el presidente de la BGA.

Fuente: Cadena SER

Le basculement de la Crimée est-il le premier d’une longue série?

Crimea-flag.jpg

Le basculement de la Crimée est-il le premier d’une longue série?

Auteur : Al Watan (Syrie)
Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

Au-delà des pleurs emphatiques de l’Occident face à l’adhésion de la Crimée à la Fédération de Russie, le vrai enjeu est de savoir s’il s’agit d’un événement orphelin ou s’il préfigure le basculement de l’Europe orientale vers Moscou. N’ayant plus que l’asservissement à la bureaucratie bruxelloise à offrir, Bruxelles craint que ses actuels clients soient attirés par la liberté et l’argent de Moscou.

Les Occidentaux s’époumonent à dénoncer l’« annexion militaire » de la Crimée par la Russie. Selon eux, Moscou, revenant à la « doctrine Brejnev », menace la souveraineté de tous les États qui furent membres non seulement de l’ex-URSS, mais aussi du Pacte de Varsovie, et s’apprête à les envahir comme il le fit en Hongrie en 1956 et en Tchécoslovaquie en 1968.

Est-ce bien vrai ? Manifestement, les mêmes Occidentaux ne sont pas convaincus de l’imminence du danger. S’ils assimilent en paroles l’« annexion » de la Crimée par Vladimir Poutine à celle des Sudètes par Adolf Hitler, ils ne pensent pas que l’on se dirige vers une Troisième Guerre mondiale.

Tout au plus ont-ils pris des sanctions théoriques contre quelques dirigeants russes —y compris criméens— en bloquant leurs comptes, au cas ou ils voudraient en ouvrir dans des banques occidentales, ou en leur interdisant d’y voyager, si l’envie leur en prenait. Le Pentagone a bien envoyé 22 avions de combats en Pologne et dans les États baltes, mais il n’a pas l’intention de faire plus que cette gesticulation, pour le moment.

Que se passe t-il au juste ? Depuis la chute du Mur de Berlin, le 9 novembre 1989, et le sommet de Malte qui l’a suivie, les 2 et 3 décembre, les États-Unis n’ont cessé de gagner du terrain et, en violation de leurs promesses, de faire basculer un à un tous les États européens —sauf la Russie— dans l’Otan.

Le processus a débuté quelques jours plus tard, à la Noël 1989, avec le renversement des Ceau?escu en Roumanie et leur remplacement par un autre dignitaire communiste subitement converti au libéralisme, Ion Iliescu. Pour la première fois, la CIA organisait un coup d’État aux yeux de tous, tout en le mettant en scène comme une « révolution » grâce à une nouvelle chaîne de télévision, CNN International. C’était le début d’une longue série.

Une vingtaine d’autres cibles allaient suivre, souvent par des moyens tout aussi frauduleux : l’Albanie, l’Allemagne de l’Est, l’Azerbaïdjan, la Bosnie-Herzégovine, la Bulgarie, la Croatie, l’Estonie, la Géorgie, la Hongrie, le Kosovo, la Lettonie, la Lituanie, la Macédoine, la Moldavie, le Monténégro, la Pologne, la Serbie, la Slovaquie, la Slovénie, la Tchéquie et l’Ukraine.

Aucun document ne fut signé lors du sommet de Malte, mais le président Bush Sr., conseillé par Condoleezza Rice, prit l’engagement oral qu’aucun membre du Pacte de Varsovie ne serait accepté dans l’Otan. En réalité, l’Allemagne de l’Est y entra de facto, par le simple jeu de son adhésion à l’Allemagne de l’Ouest. La porte étant ainsi ouverte, ce sont aujourd’hui 12 États ex-membres de l’URSS ou du Pacte de Varsovie qui y ont adhéré et les autres qui sont en attente de rejoindre l’Alliance.

Cependant, « les meilleures choses ont une fin ». La puissance de l’Otan et de son versant civil, l’Union européenne, vacille. Certes l’Alliance n’a jamais été si nombreuse, mais ses armées sont peu efficaces. Elle excelle sur de petits théâtres d’opération, comme en Afghanistan, mais ne peut plus entrer en guerre contre la Chine, ni contre la Russie, sans la certitude de perdre comme on l’a vu en Syrie cet été.

En définitive, les Occidentaux sont stupéfaits de la rapidité et de l’efficacité russes. Durant les jeux Olympiques de Sotchi, Vladimir Poutine n’a stoïquement livré aucun commentaire sur les événements de la place Maidan. Mais il a réagi dès qu’il a eu les mains libres. Chacun a pu alors constater qu’il abattait des cartes qu’il avait préparées durant son long silence. En quelques heures, des forces pro-russes ont neutralisé les forces pro-Kiev de Crimée tandis qu’une révolution était organisée à Semferopol pour porter au pouvoir une équipe pro-russe. Le nouveau gouvernement a appelé à un référendum d’autodétermination qui a enregistré une immense vague pro-russe, population tatare incluse. Puis, les Forces officielles russes ont fait prisonniers avec leurs matériels les soldats se réclamant encore de Kiev. Tout cela sans tirer un coup de feu, à l’exception d’un sniper ukrainien pro-Otan qui fut arrêté à Semferopol après avoir tué une personne de chaque bord.

Il y a vingt ans, les mêmes Criméens auraient certainement voté contre la Russie. Mais aujourd’hui, leur liberté est bien mieux assurée par Moscou que par Kiev, où un tiers du gouvernement revient aux nazis et les deux autres tiers aux représentants des oligarques. En outre, leur économie en faillite a immédiatement été relevée par la Banque de Russie, tandis que, malgré le FMI et les prêts des États-Unis et de l’UE, Kiev est condamné à une longue période de pauvreté. Il n’était pas nécessaire de parler russe pour faire ce choix et, malgré la propagande occidentale, les musulmans Tatars l’ont fait comme les russophones. C’est également le choix de 88 % des militaires ukrainiens stationnés en Crimée, qui se sont ralliés à Moscou avec la ferme intention de faire venir leurs familles et de leur obtenir la nationalité russe. C’est aussi le choix de 82 % des marins ukrainiens qui se trouvaient en mer, trop heureux de pouvoir devenir Russes, ils se sont ralliés à Moscou avec leurs bâtiments sans y être contraints d’aucune manière.

La liberté et la prospérité, qui ont été les arguments de vente de l’Occident depuis presque 70 ans, ont changé de camp.

Il ne s’agit pas d’affirmer ici que la Russie est parfaite, mais de constater que pour les Criméens et en réalité pour la plupart des Européens, elle est plus attractive que le camp occidental.

C’est pourquoi l’indépendance de la Crimée et son adhésion à la Fédération de Russie marquent le retour du balancier. Pour la première fois, un peuple ex-soviétique décide librement de reconnaître l’autorité de Moscou. Ce que craignent les Occidentaux, c’est que cet événement ait un effet comparable à la chute du Mur de Berlin, mais dans l’autre sens. Pourquoi ne verrait-on pas des États membres de l’Otan —comme la Grèce— ou simplement de l’Union européenne —comme Chypre— suivre le même chemin ? Le camp occidental se déliterait alors et sombrerait dans une très forte récession —comme la Russie d’Eltsine—.

En outre, la question de la survie des États-Unis ne manquerait pas de se poser. La dissolution de l’URSS aurait dû entrainer celle de son ennemi et néanmoins partenaire, ces deux super-puissances n’existant que l’une face à l’autre. Or, il n’en fut rien. Washington étant débarrassé de son compétiteur se lança à la conquête du monde, globalisa l’économie et installa un Nouvel Ordre. Il fallut deux ans et un mois à l’Union soviétique pour se dissoudre après la chute du Mur de Berlin. Verrons-nous bientôt la dissolution des États-Unis et de l’Union européenne en plusieurs entités, ainsi que l’enseigne Igor Panarin à l’Académie diplomatique de Moscou ? L’effondrement sera d’autant plus rapide que Washington réduira ses subventions à ses alliés et Bruxelles ses fonds structurels.

Personne ne doit craindre l’attractivité de la Russie, car c’est une puissance impériale, mais pas impérialiste. Si Moscou a tendance à rabrouer les petits pays qu’il protège, il n’entend pas étendre son hégémonie par la force. Sa stratégie militaire est celle du « déni d’accès » à son territoire. Ses armées sont les premières au monde en termes de défense anti-aérienne et anti-navale. Elles peuvent détruire des flottes de bombardiers et de porte-avions. Mais elles ne sont pas équipées pour partir à la conquête du monde, ni déployées dans quantité de bases extérieures.

Il est particulièrement étrange d’entendre les Occidentaux dénoncer l’adhésion de la Crimée à la Fédération de Russie comme contraire au droit international et à la Constitution ukrainienne. N’est-ce pas eux qui démembrèrent l’URSS et le Pacte de Varsovie ? N’est-ce pas eux qui rompirent l’ordre constitutionnel à Kiev ?

Le ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, déplore une prétendue volonté russe de « couper l’Europe en deux ». Mais la Russie s’est débarrassée de la dictature bureaucratique soviétique et n’entend pas restaurer le Rideau de fer. Ce sont les États-Unis qui veulent couper l’Europe en deux pour éviter l’hémorragie vers l’Est. La nouvelle dictature bureaucratique n’est plus à Moscou, mais à Bruxelles, elle se nomme Union européenne.

D’ores et déjà, Washington tente de fixer ses alliés dans son camp, il développe sa couverture de missiles en Pologne, en Roumanie et en Azerbaïdjan. Il ne fait plus mystère que son « bouclier » n’a jamais été destiné à contrer des missiles iraniens, mais est conçu pour attaquer la Russie. Il tente aussi de pousser ses alliés européens à prendre des sanctions économiques qui paralyseraient le continent et pousseraient les capitaux à fuir… aux États-Unis.

L’ampleur de ces ajustements est telle que le Pentagone examine la possibilité d’interrompre son « pivot vers l’Extrême-Orient », c’est-à-dire le déplacement de ses troupes d’Europe et du Proche-Orient pour les positionner en vue d’une guerre contre la Chine. Quoi qu’il en soit, toute modification de sa stratégie à long terme désorganisera encore plus ses armées sur le court et le moyen terme. Moscou n’en demandait pas autant, qui observe avec volupté les réactions des populations de l’Est de l’Ukraine et, pourquoi pas, de la Transnistrie.

mercredi, 26 mars 2014

Putin’s Triumph

youll-never-catch-putin-in-a-skirt-in-fact-his-persona-is-more-like-that-of-a-lumberjackwarrior-here-putin-recharges-on-a-visit-to-the-siberian-khakasiya-region.jpg

Putin’s Triumph

Ex: http://orientalreview.org/

By Israel SHAMIR (Israel)

Nobody expected events to move on with such a breath-taking speed. The Russians took their time; they sat on the fence and watched while the Brown storm-troopers conquered Kiev, and they watched while Mrs Victoria Nuland of the State Department and her pal Yatsenyuk (“Yats”) slapped each other’s backs and congratulated themselves on their quick victory. They watched when President Yanukovych escaped to Russia to save his skin. They watched when the Brown bands moved eastwards to threaten the Russian-speaking South East. They patiently listened while Mme Timoshenko, fresh out of gaol, swore to void treaties with Russia and to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from its main harbour in Sevastopol. They paid no heed when the new government appointed oligarchs to rule Eastern provinces. Nor did they react when children in Ukrainian schools were ordered to sing “Hang a Russian on a thick branch” and the oligarch-governor’s deputy promised to hang dissatisfied Russians of the East as soon as Crimea is pacified. While these fateful events unravelled, Putin kept silence.

He is a cool cucumber, Mr Putin. Everybody, including this writer, thought he was too nonchalant about Ukraine’s collapse. He waited patiently. The Russians made a few slow and hesitant, almost stealthy moves. The marines Russia had based in Crimea by virtue of an international agreement (just as the US has marines in Bahrain) secured Crimea’s airports and roadblocks, provided necessary support to the volunteers of the Crimean militia (called Self-Defence Forces), but remained under cover. The Crimean parliament asserted its autonomy and promised a plebiscite in a month time. And all of a sudden things started to move real fast!

The poll was moved up to Sunday, March 16. Even before it could take place, the Crimean Parliament declared Crimea’s independence. The poll’s results were spectacular: 96% of the votes were for joining Russia; the level of participation was unusually high – over 84%. Not only ethnic Russians, but ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars voted for reunification with Russia as well. A symmetrical poll in Russia showed over 90% popular support for reunification with Crimea, despite liberals’ fear-mongering (“this will be too costly, the sanctions will destroy Russian economy, the US will bomb Moscow”, they said).

Even then, the majority of experts and talking heads expected the situation to remain suspended for a long while. Some thought Putin would eventually recognise Crimean independence, while stalling on final status, as he did with Ossetia and Abkhazia after the August 2008 war with Tbilisi. Others, especially Russian liberals, were convinced Putin would surrender Crimea in order to save Russian assets in the Ukraine.

 

Vladimir Putin delivering his address on reunification with Crimea. Source: Kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin delivering his address on reunification with Crimea. Source: Kremlin.ru

But Putin justified the Russian proverb: the Russians take time to saddle their horses, but they ride awfully fast. He recognised Crimea’s independence on Monday, before the ink on the poll’s results dried.  The next day, on Tuesday, he gathered all of Russia’s senior statesmen and parliamentarians (video) in the biggest, most glorious and elegant St George state hall in the Kremlin, lavishly restored to its Imperial glory, and declared Russia’s acceptance of Crimea’s reunification bid. Immediately after his speech, the treaty between Crimea and Russia was signed, and the peninsula reverted to Russia as it was before 1954, when Communist Party leader Khrushchev passed it to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

This was an event of supreme elation for the gathered politicians and for people at home watching it live on their tellies. The vast St George Hall applauded Putin as never before. The Russians felt immense pride: they still remember the stinging defeat of 1991, when their country was taken apart. Regaining Crimea was a wonderful reverse for them. There were public festivities in honour of this reunification all over Russia and especially in joyous Crimea.

Historians have compared the event with the restoration of Russian sovereignty over Crimea in 1870, almost twenty years after the Crimean War had ended with Russia’s defeat, when severe limitations on Russian rights in Crimea were imposed by victorious France and Britain. Now the Black Sea Fleet will be able to develop and sail freely again, enabling it to defend Syria in the next round. Though Ukrainians ran down the naval facilities and turned the most advanced submarine harbour of Balaclava into shambles, the potential is there.

Besides the pleasure of getting this lost bit of land back, there was the additional joy of outwitting the adversary. The American neocons arranged the coup in Ukraine and sent the unhappy country crashing down, but the first tangible fruit of this break up went to Russia.

A new Jewish joke was coined at that time:

Israeli President Peres asks the Russian President:

-        Vladimir, are you of Jewish ancestry?

-        Putin: What makes you think so, Shimon?

-        Peres: You made the US pay five billion dollars to deliver Crimea to Russia. Even for a Jew, that is audacious!

Five billion dollars is a reference to Victoria Nuland’s admission of having spent that much for democratisation (read: destabilisation) of the Ukraine. President Putin snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, and US hegemony suffered a set-back.

The US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power screaming at the Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin after Russia has blocked the US draft resolution "on situation in Ukraine" at the Security Council meeting on March 15, 2014.

The US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power screaming at the Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin after Russia has blocked the US draft resolution “on situation in Ukraine” at the Security Council meeting on March 15, 2014.

The Russians enjoyed the sight of their UN representative Vitaly Churkin coping with a near-assault by Samantha Power. The Irish-born US rep came close to bodily attacking the elderly grey-headed Russian diplomat telling him that “Russia was defeated (presumably in 1991 – ISH) and should bear the consequences… Russia is blackmailing the US with its nuclear weapons,” while Churkin asked her to keep her hands off him and stop foaming at the mouth. This was not the first hostile encounter between these twain: a month ago, Samantha entertained a Pussy Riot duo, and Churkin said she should join the group and embark on a concert tour.

The US Neocons’ role in the Kiev coup was clarified by two independent exposures. Wonderful Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek showed that the anti-Russian campaign of recent months (gay protests, Wahl affair, etc.) was organised by the Zionist Neocon PNAC (now renamed FPI) led by Mr Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria “Fuck EC” Nuland. It seems that the Neocons are hell-bent to undermine Russia by all means, while the Europeans are much more flexible. (True, the US troops are still stationed in Europe, and the old continent is not as free to act as it might like).

The second exposé was an interview with Alexander Yakimenko, the head of Ukrainian Secret Services (SBU) who had escaped to Russia like his president. Yakimenko accused Andriy Parubiy, the present security czar, of making a deal with the Americans. On American instructions, he delivered weapons and brought snipers who killed some 70 persons within few hours. They killed the riot police and the protesters as well.

The US Neocon-led conspiracy in Kiev was aimed against the European attempt to reach a compromise with President Yanukovych, said the SBU chief. They almost agreed on all points, but Ms Nuland wanted to derail the agreement, and so she did – with the help of a few snipers.

These snipers were used again in Crimea: a sniper shot and killed a Ukrainian soldier. When the Crimean self-defence forces began their pursuit, the sniper shot at them, killed one and wounded one. It is the same pattern: snipers are used to provoke response and hopefully to jump-start a shootout.

Novorossia

While Crimea was a walkover, the Russians are far from being home and dry. Now, the confrontation moved to the Eastern and South-Eastern provinces of mainland Ukraine, called Novorossia (New Russia) before the Communist Revolution of 1917. Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his later years predicted that Ukraine’s undoing would come from its being overburdened by industrial provinces that never belonged to the Ukraine before Lenin, – by Russian-speaking Novorossia. This prediction is likely to be fulfilled.

Who fights whom over there? It is a great error to consider the conflict a tribal one, between Russians and Ukrainians. Good old Pat Buchanan made this error saying that “Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethno-nationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad the way Israelis look upon Jews abroad, as people whose security is his legitimate concern.” Nothing could be farther away from truth: perhaps only the outlandish claim that Putin is keen on restoring the Russian Empire can compete.

Putin is not an empire-builder at all (to great regret of Russia’s communists and nationalists). Even his quick takeover of Crimea was an action forced upon him by the strong-willed people of Crimea and by the brazen aggression of the Kiev regime. I have it on a good authority that Putin hoped he would not have to make this decision. But when he decided he acted.

The ethno-nationalist assertion of Buchanan is even more misleading. Ethno-nationalists of Russia are Putin’s enemies; they support the Ukrainian ethno-nationalists and march together with Jewish liberals on Moscow street demos. Ethno-nationalism is as foreign to Russians as it is foreign to the English. You can expect to meet a Welsh or Scots nationalist, but an English nationalist is an unnatural rarity. Even the English Defence League was set up by a Zionist Jew. Likewise, you can find a Ukrainian or a Belarusian or a Cossack nationalist, but practically never a Russian one.

Putin is a proponent and advocate of non-nationalist Russian world. What is the Russian world?

Russian World

Pavel Ryzhenko "A photo in memoriam" painting (2007) depicting the last Russian Emperor Nikolay II with family visiting a military camp during WWI.

Pavel Ryzhenko “A photo in memoriam” painting (2007) depicting the last Russian Emperor Nikolay II with family visiting a military camp during WWI.

Russians populate their own vast universe embracing many ethnic units of various background, from Mongols and Karels to Jews and Tatars. Until 1991, they populated an even greater land mass (called the Soviet Union, and before that, the Russian Empire) where Russian was the lingua franca and the language of daily usage for majority of citizens. Russians could amass this huge empire because they did not discriminate and did not hog the blanket. Russians are amazingly non-tribal, to an extent unknown in smaller East European countries, but similar to other great Eastern Imperial nations, the Han Chinese and the Turks before the advent of Young Turks and Ataturk. The Russians did not assimilate but partly acculturated their neighbours for whom Russian language and culture became the gateway to the world. The Russians protected and supported local cultures, as well, at their expense, for they enjoy this diversity.

Before 1991, the Russians promoted a universalist humanist world-view; nationalism was practically banned, and first of all, Russian nationalism. No one was persecuted or discriminated because of his ethnic origin (yes, Jews complained, but they always complain). There was some positive discrimination in the Soviet republics, for instance a Tajik would have priority to study medicine in the Tajik republic, before a Russian or a Jew; and he would be able to move faster up the ladder in the Party and politics. Still the gap was small.

After 1991, this universalist world-view was challenged by a parochial and ethno-nationalist one in all ex-Soviet republics save Russia and Belarus. Though Russia ceased to be Soviet, it retained its universalism. In the republics, people of Russian culture were severely discriminated against, often fired from their working places, in worst cases they were expelled or killed. Millions of Russians, natives of the republics, became refugees; together with them, millions of non-Russians who preferred Russian universalist culture to “their own” nationalist and parochial one fled to Russia. That is why modern Russia has millions of Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks, Latvians and of smaller ethnic groups from the republics. Still, despite discrimination, millions of Russians and people of Russian culture remained in the republics, where their ancestors lived for generations, and the Russian language became a common ground for all non-nationalist forces.

If one wants to compare with Israel, as Pat Buchanan did, it is the republics, such as Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Estonia do follow Israeli model of discriminating and persecuting their “ethnic minorities”, while Russia follows the West European model of equality.

France vs Occitania

In order to understand the Russia-Ukraine problem, compare it with France. Imagine it divided into North and South France, the North retaining the name of France, while the South of France calling itself “Occitania”, and its people “Occitans”, their language “Occitan”. The government of Occitania would force the people to speak Provençal, learn Frederic Mistral’s poems by rote and teach children to hate the French, who had devastated their beautiful land in the Albigensian Crusade of 1220. France would just gnash its teeth. Now imagine that after twenty years, the power in Occitania were violently seized by some romantic southern fascists who were keen to eradicate “800 years of Frank domination” and intend to discriminate against people who prefer to speak the language of Victor Hugo and Albert Camus. Eventually France would be forced to intervene and defend francophones, at least in order to stem the refugee influx. Probably the Southern francophones of Marseilles and Toulon would support the North against “their own” government, though they are not migrants from Normandy.

Putin defends all Russian-speakers, all ethnic minorities, such as Gagauz or Abkhaz, not only ethnic Russians. He defends the Russian World, all those russophones who want and need his protection. This Russian World definitely includes many, perhaps majority of people in the Ukraine, ethnic Russians, Jews, small ethnic groups and ethnic Ukrainians, in Novorossia and in Kiev.

Indeed Russian world was and is attractive. The Jews were happy to forget their schtetl and Yiddish; their best poets Pasternak and Brodsky wrote in Russian and considered themselves Russian. Still, some minor poets used Yiddish for their self-expression. The Ukrainians, as well, used Russian for literature, though they spoke their dialect at home for long time. Nikolai Gogol, the great Russian writer of Ukrainian origin, wrote Russian, and he was dead set against literary usage of the Ukrainian dialect. There were a few minor Romantic figures who used the dialect for creative art, like Taras Shevchenko and Lesya Ukrainka.

Solzhenitsyn wrote: “Even ethnic-Ukrainians do not use and do not know Ukrainian. In order to promote its use, the Ukrainian government bans Russian schools, forbids Russian TV, even librarians are not allowed to speak Russian with their readers. This anti-Russian position of Ukraine is exactly what the US wants in order to weaken Russia.“

Putin in his speech on Crimea stressed that he wants to secure the Russian world – everywhere in the Ukraine. In Novorossia the need is acute, for there are daily confrontations between the people and the gangs sent by the Kiev regime. While Putin does not yet want (as opposed to Solzhenitsyn and against general Russian feeling) to take over Novorossia, he may be forced to it, as he was in Crimea. There is a way to avoid this major shift: the Ukraine must rejoin the Russian world. While keeping its independence, Ukraine must grant full equality to its Russian language speakers. They should be able to have Russian-language schools, newspapers, TV, be entitled to use Russian everywhere. Anti-Russian propaganda must cease. And fantasies of joining NATO, too.

This is not an extraordinary demand: Latinos in the US are allowed to use Spanish. In Europe, equality of languages and cultures is a sine qua non. Only in the ex-Soviet republics are these rights trampled – not only in Ukraine, but in the Baltic republics as well. For twenty years, Russia made do with weak objections, when Russian-speakers (the majority of them are not ethnic Russians) in the Baltic states were discriminated against. This is likely to change. Lithuania and Latvia have already paid for their anti-Russian position by losing their profitable transit trade with Russia. Ukraine is much more important for Russia. Unless the present regime is able to change (not very likely), this illegitimate regime will be changed by people of Ukraine, and Russia will use R2P against the criminal elements in power.

The majority of people of Ukraine would probably agree with Putin, irrespective of their ethnicity. Indeed, in the Crimean referendum, Ukrainians and Tatars voted en masse together with Russians. This is a positive sign: there will be no ethnic strife in the Ukraine’s East, despite US efforts to the contrary. The decision time is coming up fast: some experts presume that by end of May the Ukrainian crisis will be behind us.

Source: CounterPunch

Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit

Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit

by Robert Parry

Ex: RINF Alternative News

You might think that policymakers with so many bloody fiascos on their résumés as the U.S. neocons, including the catastrophic Iraq War, would admit their incompetence and return home to sell insurance or maybe work in a fast-food restaurant. Anything but directing the geopolitical decisions of the world’s leading superpower.

But Official Washington’s neocons are nothing if not relentless and resilient. They are also well-funded and well-connected. So they won’t do the honorable thing and disappear. They keep hatching new schemes and strategies to keep the world stirred up and to keep their vision of world domination – and particularly “regime change” in the Middle East – alive.

Now, the neocons have stoked a confrontation over Ukraine, involving two nuclear-armed states, the United States and Russia. But – even if nuclear weapons don’t come into play – the neocons have succeeded in estranging U.S. President Barack Obama from Russian President Vladimir Putin and sabotaging the pair’s crucial cooperation on Iran and Syria, which may have been the point all along.

Though the Ukraine crisis has roots going back decades, the chronology of the recent uprising — and the neocon interest in it – meshes neatly with neocon fury over Obama and Putin working together to avert a U.S. military strike against Syria last summer and then brokering an interim nuclear agreement with Iran last fall that effectively took a U.S. bombing campaign against Iran off the table.

With those two top Israeli priorities – U.S. military attacks on Syria and Iran – sidetracked, the American neocons began activating their influential media and political networks to counteract the Obama-Putin teamwork. The neocon wedge to splinter Obama away from Putin was driven into Ukraine.

Operating out of neocon enclaves in the U.S. State Department and at U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, led by the National Endowment for Democracy, neocon operatives targeted Ukraine even before the recent political unrest began shaking apart the country’s fragile ethnic and ideological cohesion.

Last September, as the prospects for a U.S. military strike against Syria were fading thanks to Putin, NED president Carl Gershman, who is something of a neocon paymaster controlling more than $100 million in congressionally approved funding each year, took to the pages of the neocon-flagship Washington Post and wrote that Ukraine was now “the biggest prize.”

But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, “may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself.” In other words, the new hope was for “regime change” in Kiev and Moscow.

Putin had made himself a major annoyance in Neocon World, particularly with his diplomacy on Syria that defused a crisis over a Sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Despite the attack’s mysterious origins – and the absence of any clear evidence proving the Syrian government’s guilt – the U.S. State Department and the U.S. news media rushed to the judgment that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did it.

Politicians and pundits baited Obama with claims that Assad had brazenly crossed Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons and that U.S. “credibility” now demanded military retaliation. A longtime Israeli/neocon goal, “regime change” in Syria, seemed within reach.

But Putin brokered a deal in which Assad agreed to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal (even as he continued to deny any role in the Sarin attack). The arrangement was a huge letdown for the neocons and Israeli officials who had been drooling over the prospect that a U.S. bombing campaign would bring Assad to his knees and deliver a strategic blow against Iran, Israel’s current chief enemy.

Putin then further offended the neocons and the Israeli government by helping to facilitate an interim nuclear deal with Iran, making another neocon/Israeli priority, a U.S. war against Iran, less likely.

Putting Putin in Play

So, the troublesome Putin had to be put in play. And, NED’s Gershman was quick to note a key Russian vulnerability, neighboring Ukraine, where a democratically elected but corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, was struggling with a terrible economy and weighing whether to accept a European aid offer, which came with many austerity strings attached, or work out a more generous deal with Russia.

There was already a strong U.S.-organized political/media apparatus in place for destabilizing Ukraine’s government. Gershman’s NED had 65 projects operating in the country – training “activists,” supporting “journalists” and organizing business groups, according to its latest report. (NED was created in 1983 to do in relative openness what the CIA had long done in secret, nurture pro-U.S. operatives under the umbrella of “promoting democracy.”)

So, when Yanukovych opted for Russia’s more generous $15 billion aid package, the roof fell in on him. In a speech to Ukrainian business leaders last December, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover and the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, reminded the group that the U.S. had invested $5 billion in Ukraine’s “European aspirations.”

Then, urged on by Nuland and neocon Sen. John McCain, protests in the capital of Kiev turned increasingly violent with neo-Nazi militias moving to the fore. Unidentified snipers opened fire on protesters and police, touching off fiery clashes that killed some 80 people (including about a dozen police officers).

On Feb. 21, in a desperate attempt to tamp down the violence, Yanukovych signed an agreement brokered by European countries. He agreed to surrender many of his powers, to hold early elections (so he could be voted out of office), and pull back the police. That last step, however, opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias to overrun government buildings and force Yanukovych to flee for his life.

With these modern-day storm troopers controlling key buildings – and brutalizing Yanukovych supporters – a  rump Ukrainian parliament voted, in an extra-constitutional fashion, to remove Yanukovych from office. This coup-installed regime, with far-right parties controlling four ministries including defense, received immediate U.S. and European Union recognition as Ukraine’s “legitimate” government.

As remarkable – and newsworthy – as it was that a government on the European continent included Nazis in the executive branch for the first time since World War II, the U.S. news media performed as it did before the Iraq War and during various other international crises. It essentially presented the neocon-preferred narrative and treated the presence of the neo-Nazis as some kind of urban legend.

Virtually across the board, from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, the U.S. press corps fell in line, painting Yanukovych and Putin as the “black-hat” villains and the coup regime as the “white-hat” good guys, which required, of course, whiting out the neo-Nazi “brown shirts.”

Neocon Expediency

Some neocon defenders have challenged my reporting that U.S. neocons played a significant role in the Ukrainian putsch. One argument is that the neocons, who regard the U.S.-Israeli bond as inviolable, would not knowingly collaborate with neo-Nazis given the history of the Holocaust (and indeed the role of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators in extermination campaigns against Poles and Jews).

But the neocons have frequently struck alliances of convenience with some of the most unsavory – and indeed anti-Semitic – forces on earth, dating back to the Reagan administration and its collaboration with Latin American “death squad” regimes, including work with the World Anti-Communist League that included not only neo-Nazis but aging real Nazis.

More recently in Syria, U.S. neocons (and Israeli leaders) are so focused on ousting Assad, an ally of hated Iran, that they have cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s Sunni monarchy (known for its gross anti-Semitism). Israeli officials have even expressed a preference for Saudi-backed Sunni extremists winning in Syria if that is the only way to get rid of Assad and hurt his allies in Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Last September, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren said in the interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

Oren said that was Israel’s view even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Oren, who was Israel’s point man in dealing with Official Washington’s neocons, is considered very close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and reflects his views. For decades, U.S. neocons have supported Netanyahu and his hardline Likud Party, including as strategists on his 1996 campaign for prime minister when neocons such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith developed the original “regime change” strategy. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

In other words, Israel and its U.S. neocon supporters have been willing to collaborate with extreme right-wing and even anti-Semitic forces if that advances their key geopolitical goals, such as maneuvering the U.S. government into military confrontations with Syria and Iran.

So, while it may be fair to assume that neocons like Nuland and McCain would have preferred that the Ukraine coup had been spearheaded by militants who weren’t neo-Nazis – or, for that matter, that the Syrian rebels were not so dominated by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists – the neocons (and their Israeli allies) see these tactical collaborations as sometimes necessary to achieve overarching strategic priorities.

And, since their current strategic necessity is to scuttle the fragile negotiations over Syria and Iran, which otherwise might negate the possibility of U.S. military strikes against those two countries, the Putin-Obama collaboration had to go.

By spurring on the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president, the neocons helped touch off a cascade of events – now including Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its annexation by Russia – that have raised tensions and provoked Western retaliation against Russia. The crisis also has made the continued Obama-Putin teamwork on Syria and Iran extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Like other neocon-engineered schemes, there will surely be much collateral damage in this latest one. For instance, if the tit-for-tat economic retaliations escalate – and Russian gas supplies are disrupted – Europe’s fragile recovery could be tipped back into recession, with harmful consequences for the U.S. economy, too.

There’s also the certainty that congressional war hawks and neocon pundits will press for increased U.S. military spending and aggressive tactics elsewhere in the world to punish Putin, meaning even less money and attention for domestic programs or deficit reduction. Obama’s “nation-building at home” will be forgotten.

But the neocons have long made it clear that their vision for the world – one of America’s “full-spectrum dominance” and “regime change” in Middle Eastern countries opposed to Israel – overrides all other national priorities. And as long as the neocons face no accountability for the havoc that they wreak, they will continue working Washington’s corridors of power, not selling insurance or flipping hamburgers.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Who Has Been More Aggressive?

Bush-Krieger_Spiegel.jpg

Who Has Been More Aggressive?

Who has been more aggressive, George H.W. Bush in Panama or Vladimir Putin in Crimea? Who has been more aggressive, the U.S. in its actions against Noriega or Russia with respect to Crimea?

These two situations differ but they are comparable in important respects. The U.S. launched a full-scale invasion of Panama. Russia, whatever it did in Crimea, it didn’t launch a full-scale invasion. The U.S. was trying to get rid of Noriega for some years. Russia had not been trying to annex Crimea. It acted in response to Ukraine events in a region it deemed very important just as the U.S. acted in a region it deemed important for reasons of its own. What were they? I won’t go into the detail this invasion deserves. Let’s see what George H.W. Bush’s invasion message said.

“For nearly two years, the United States, nations of Latin America and the Caribbean have worked together to resolve the crisis in Panama. The goals of the United States have been to safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty. Many attempts have been made to resolve this crisis through diplomacy and negotiations. All were rejected by the dictator of Panama, Gen. Manuel Noriega, an indicted drug trafficker. Last Friday, Noriega declared his military dictatorship to be in a state of war with the United States and publicly threatened the lives of Americans in Panama. The very next day forces under his command shot and killed an unarmed American serviceman, wounded another, arrested and brutally beat a third American serviceman and then brutally interrogated his wife, threatening her with sexual abuse. That was enough.”

The Russians have made the claim too of safeguarding Russians as well as their bases. They too have made the claim of safeguarding democracy and there has been a vote to back that claim up. No drug trafficking is involved in Crimea, but that was a poor excuse for Bush to have used anyway. Russia has made the claim that the coup in Ukraine introduced a rogue government just as the U.S. made claims against Noriega. Bush mentioned the failure of negotiations. Whatever they were or weren’t or how they were handled, let’s note that the Ukrainian government had reached an agreement on Feb. 21 that was soon broken by violent mob activity. This was in Ukraine, not Crimea, but there is a political link and it does provide Russia with a parallel rationale that it has used.

These comparisons suggest, at a minimum and understating the case, that the Russians have not behaved in a way that differs that much from how the U.S. has behaved. But in fact the Russian actions have been much milder. There has been no big invasion. A vote was held. The Russians had standing treaty rights in Crimea.

Bush also claimed that Noriega declared war against the U.S. This claim inverted the truth. Noriega said that the U.S. had declared war on Panama. See author Theodore H. Draper’s work on that claim. I quote Draper:

“As I have now learned, Bush’s statement was, at best, a half-truth, at worst a flagrant distortion. On December 15, Noriega had not simply declared war on the United States. He said, in effect, that the United States had declared war on Panama, and that, therefore, Panama was in a state of war with the United States. Just what Noriega said was known or available in Washington by December 16 at the latest. How Noriega’s words came across as a simple declaration of war is a case history of official management of the news and negligence by the press.

“The key passage in Noriega’s speech on December 15 accused the President of the United States of having ‘invoked the powers of war against Panama’ and ‘through constant psychological and military harassment of having created a state of war in Panama, daily insulting our sovereignty and territorial integrity.’ He appealed for ‘a common front to respond to the aggression,’ and stressed ‘the urgency to unite as one to fight against the aggressor.’

“The resolution on December 15 by the Panama Assembly also took this line—’To declare the Republic of Panama in a state of war for the duration of the aggression unleashed against the Panamanian people by the US Government.’”

This war item may appear to digress from the comparison because the Crimean situation doesn’t involve antagonism between Russia and Crimea, whereas the Panama-U.S. situation did. Its relevance is that the U.S. went considerably further militarily in Panama than Russia did in Crimea, using a false and exaggerated claim as an important reason.

Let us reach a conclusion. If the U.S. could launch a large-scale aggression against the government of Panama for some reasons similar to those invoked by Russia (protection of citizens and democracy) and for one unjustifiable reason (drugs), and also with a lie or half-truth (Noriega unilaterally declaring war on the U.S.), then do not the Russian actions in Crimea, where it has treaty rights for bases and military personnel and where it has a longstanding interest in an adjacent strategic region, appear not to be anything excessive as such things go and far milder than the U.S. action in Panama? This seems to be an inescapable conclusion.

If Russia is the big bad bogeyman in Crimea, what was the U.S. in Panama in 1989? If the U.S. claimed noble aims and getting rid of a criminal in Panama’s government, how far different are the Russian claims that the Crimeans have a right to dissociate from a criminal gang in Kiev and to do so by a peaceful vote? Whose actions are milder, those of the Russians in Crimea or those of the U.S. in Panama? Whose actions are more aggressive, those of the Russians in Crimea or those of the U.S. in Panama? It may be that the Russians will invade Ukraine itself, in which case they will be open to much greater and more severe criticism. For the moment, we are addressing Crimea.

There is a difference between Panama and Crimea in that Crimea has voted to join the Russian Federation whereas Panama was a separate country and remains so. However, the U.S., having once invaded the country, obviously has reserved its option, by violence if necessary, to make and unmake Panama’s government at its will and according to its interests.

Seen against this comparison, the statements being made by top U.S. officials or former officials like Hillary Clinton, that Putin is a new Hitler, are wild exaggerations. If Russia has violated international law through its activities surrounding the Crimean vote, as the warmongers in the U.S. shout, how much more did Bush’s invasion of Panama violate international law? And, by the way, how could Bush invade Panama and then inform Congress when it is Congress that must declare war? And how could Bush invade Panama without a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing it? This U.S. invasion was not even a case of applying the already-expansive Monroe Doctrine, for there was no foreign force invading this hemisphere.

I have not explained why Bush invaded Panama or why the U.S. was so concerned about Noriega in the years preceding that invasion. I have limited the discussion to one question, which is this. Who has been more aggressive, George H.W. Bush in Panama or Vladimir Putin in Crimea? I think it’s evident that Bush was far more aggressive.

Before too many U.S. officials get too upset over Putin, before they absorb too much of the neocon warmongering nonsense and exaggerations, before they lead the U.S. into dangerous confrontations for which there is no need, before they shock the world’s economy with armed confrontations, it would pay them on behalf of Americans in this land to study their own history as well as that of Russia and to gain some much needed perspective so that they can behave with at least some degree of maturity and statesman-like wisdom.

The time is long past for those in Washington and throughout this land who understand and despise the neocon ideas to stand up against them and marginalize them. The neocons should be viewed, not as a constraint on appropriate political actions and responses, but as a spent moral force lacking in moral standing that has been wrong time and again in recommending actions that supposedly benefitted Americans but in reality have dragged this country further and further down.

Remaking the world, freeing peoples, playing global saviour, acting as the world’s policeman, and attempting to be the world’s conscience have all got to be seen as bad and wrong for any state. States cannot do any of these things without becoming monsters of power who are creatures of their own interests and their own bureaucracies who oppress the people they rule. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Syria should all attest to that. Even the Vietnam War should attest to that.

A  state that has the power to do supposedly good things will invariably have the power to do very bad things, and it will. This is both basic human nature and the basic outcome of bureaucratic governments. Power corrupts. Of equal importance is that any such state will consist of bureaucracies that do the actual ruling, and they become self-perpetuating and separated from the interests of the people for whom they are supposedly doing good. Instead, they become unjust, out for themselves, corrupt, slow to act, inconsistent in their actions, and impervious to accountability.

The basic neocon idea is that of an expanding U.S. hegemony according to U.S. political ideas and blueprints. The idea is a monopoly of power, a superpower. This is the basic idea of empire, and it is both bad and wrong, practically and morally. A monopoly on power is the wrong way to strive for the good. The good needs to be constantly discovered and re-discovered at a decentralized level, within each person’s mind and conscience. A person’s own life and willing associations with others provide more than ample scope for challenging a person to figure out what is good and bad as well as what is right and wrong. No one person and certainly no one powerful state knows the good or can achieve it. The good is not provided in any blueprint. It is always a work in progress, dependent on local and individual details and conditions that are unknown to state powers. The attempts by states to achieve the abstract good must fail. They are going against the nature of the human condition.

America has a very serious problem, which is that both parties stand for the empire and the neocon ideas are very much tied in with the ideas that ground the empire. Right now, the empire is viewed by far too many people as good and right. As long as those who might separate themselves from neocon ideas and criticize them strenuously remain locked in support of the empire and/or reluctant to take issue with it, both parties are going to be tools of neocon thinking.

mardi, 25 mars 2014

La Crimée épicentre d’un séisme mondial… Vers la guerre ?

le-drapeau-de-la-crimee-photo-afp-alisa-borovikova.jpg

La Crimée épicentre d’un séisme mondial… Vers la guerre ?

par Jean-Michel VERNOCHET
Ex.: http://www.bvoltaire.fr

Ex-chef des Services de Renseignement ukrainien, le général Smeshko ne mâche pas ses mots : « Poutine place l’Europe au bord d’une Troisième guerre mondiale ».

Ce n’est pas un quelconque tabloïd qui publie ce propos mais Le Figaro, et le jour du printemps ! N’est-ce pas un peu vite dit ? En tout cas Paris, toujours aussi bien avisé, se propose d’envoyer des avions de combat en Pologne aux abords de la frontière ukrainienne à l’instar du Pentagone qui a déjà acheminé douze F16 et 300 GI’s… au prétexte de manœuvres.

« On » voudrait faire monter la tension que l’on ne s’y prendrait pas autrement. Au demeurant on ne se prive pas de dire que « Poutine ne comprend rien à l’Ukraine » [ibid.Smeshko]. Il n’en demeure pas moins que ce sont les gens de Bruxelles qui ont mis le feu aux poudres en aguichant les Ukrainiens avec un accord de partenariat que l’Union voulait exclusif, cela sans tenir le moindre compte des réalités géopolitiques et historiques.

Bravo donc Catherine Asthon qui a su faire miroiter aux Ukrainiens une manne céleste pourtant aujourd’hui introuvable… mais que distribuait naguère, et avec largesse, les eurocrates aux pays du Sud de l’Europe… ceux qui justement, Grèce, Portugal, Espagne, Italie des Pouilles et de la Calabre, tous à présent dans la plus noire panade.

Bref, n’y avait-il pas là, de la part de du Moloch bruxellois, une sorte d’escroquerie morale qu’il convient d’épingler ? Comment en effet une Europe envasée dans l’actuel marasme structurel qui est le sien, aurait-elle pu utilement venir au secours de Kiev ?

Cependant, ce serait faire une injure trop grande aux technocrates que de leur imputer une erreur aussi grossière consistant à sous-estimer la capacité de réaction du Kremlin. Surtout après l’annexion manquée d’août 2008, celle de l’Ossétie du Sud par la Géorgie.

Il va de soi que nul, en tel domaine, ne refait deux fois les mêmes erreurs. Notons que, suite à leur déconfiture géorgienne, les Européens échaudés – à rebours – par la « crise du gaz » de l’hiver 2008/2009, ont pris dès cette époque des dispositions pour réduire à la fois leur dépendance vis-à-vis des fournitures russes, mais également pour palier toute éventuelle rupture d’approvisionnement en modifiant en conséquence les réseaux de gazoducs en Europe orientale.

Deux autres conflits gaziers russo-ukrainiens – en 2005/2006 et en 2007/2008 – avaient précédé l’épisode de 2009. Épisodes qu’il serait d’ailleurs vain d’interpréter ou d’analyser en faisant abstraction du contexte géopolitique régional et de l’attraction déjà exercée par la sphère occidentaliste sur les Ukrainiens et plus encore sur leurs puissantes oligarchies.

Pendant que la classe dirigeante française joue à la bataille navale et règle leurs comptes dans ce qui ressemble de plus en plus furieusement à une « voyoucratie » politicienne, le séisme dont l’épicentre se situe sur la Péninsule de Crimée, commence ainsi à faire sentir ses inquiétantes répliques un peu partout… à Venise et en Transnistrie tentées à leur tour par l’autodétermination. Cette dernière, entité séparatiste pro-russe de Moldavie – l’État qui n’existe pas – donne des sueurs froides à Kiev, et pas seulement.

Ici la question se pose de savoir si un détramage général de l’Europe n’a pas été enclenché pas sur le Maïdan de Kiev ?

Comment en effet ne pas penser aux Flandres, à la Catalogne, au Pays basque ? Samedi 22 mars des soldats russes investissaient la base aérienne de Belbek en Crimée. Les choses vont vite, très vite. Pour l’heure, l’Union européenne n’a à opposer aux forces qu’elle a libérées que sa mauvaise humeur et sa mauvaise foi.

Tel est pris qui croyait prendre : la ville de Donetsk, capitale économique et industrielle du Donbass et de l’Ukraine, se mobilise, bannières russes flottant au vent. La foule ne demande pour l’instant que le retour du président déchu Viktor Ianoukovitch, mais les choses pourraient aussi ne pas en rester là !

lundi, 24 mars 2014

Lavrov alerte les Algériens et met en garde les Tunisiens

Lavrov alerte les Algériens et met en garde les Tunisiens

Ex: http://www.tunisie-secret.com

La Russie hausse le ton. On ne touchera pas à l'Algérie, avertit Sergueï Lavrov, ministre des Affaires étrangères de la Russie, qui, soit-dit en passant, a été accueilli à Tunis avec le drapeau Serbe, une bourde de la diplomatie tunisienne qui ne sait plus faire la différence entre un drapeau russe et un drapeau serbe. La conspiration contre l’Algérie n’est plus un secret pour personne. Tout est prêt pour déstabiliser ce pays coincé entre une Tunisie sous mandat islamo-atlantiste, un Maroc sous influence israélienne, et une Libye en voie d’afghanisation. A Tunis, les cinq conditions sont réunies pour mener à bien ce plan anti-algérien : la base militaire américaine qui se trouve à un vol d’oiseau des frontières algériennes, le siège de Freedom House qui est la pépinière des cybers-collabos, les rats palestiniens du Hamas qui ont creusé des dizaines de tunnels aux frontières tuniso-algériennes, la mini armée de djihadistes tunisiens, algériens, libyens et tchétchènes disséminés en Tunisie, et les cellules dormantes d’Al-Qaïda. TS.


Lavrov alerte les Algériens et met en garde les Tunisiens
En visite éclair en Tunisie, il y a quelques jours, le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, Sergueï Lavrov, a soutenu lors de sa visite, il y a quelques jours à Tunis, que des «parties étrangères» veulent mettre l'Algérie à feu et à sang à travers la commercialisation d'un printemps algérien. Sans les nommer, le diplomate russe a ajouté que ces mêmes parties «ont ouvert plusieurs fronts près des frontières algériennes depuis la Libye, la Tunisie et le Mali». Etant des alliés traditionnels, M.Lavrov a notamment réitéré le soutien de son pays à l'Algérie. Le chef de la diplomatie russe a dévoilé, lors de son passage en Tunisie, que l'Algérie est devenue la cible des instigateurs et autres fomenteurs qui insistent pour y écrire le dernier épisode d'un supposé printemps arabe. Aussi, a-t-il mis en garde les autorités algériennes contre les instigateurs de ce qu'on appelle «printemps arabe».

Le ministre russe des AE incrimine directement ceux qui ont été à l'origine des bouleversements provoqués délibérément en Tunisie, en Libye et au Mali, d'où parvient la plus grande menace contre l'Algérie. Il estime que les conspirateurs du nouvel ordre mondial établissent leurs plans à base d'une politique d'influence en misant sur les minorités populaires et les réseaux terroristes.

Cependant, cette menace soulignée par Moscou n'est pas nouvelle pour les services de renseignements algériens, pas une menace qu'ignorent les services de renseignements algériens. Soumis à une très forte pression depuis le début de la guerre civile en Libye, les forces de sécurité algériennes ont misé sur leur expérience acquise sur le terrain de la lutte antiterroriste. En un temps relativement court, des milliers d'informations et de témoignages de première main ont été analysés et recoupés par les services du DRS engagés dans une course contre la montre contre tous genres de menaces, notamment des groupuscules criminels nés à l'ombre d'une crise libyenne qui aura servi de catalyseur au mouvement jihadiste. Un mouvement relativisé et parfois banalisé par l'ensemble des parties entrées en guerre contre le régime d'El Gueddafi, dont la France, la Grande-Bretagne et les USA. Dans leur banque de renseignements les services de sécurité ont réussi à identifier des réseaux nouvellement constitués composés de Marocains et de Libyens.

L'arrestation de plusieurs agents du Mossad en Algérie en est la preuve tangible. Ne jugeant pas nécessaire de dévoiler le véritable scénario programmé contre l'Algérie, des sources très au fait du contexte confient que l'Algérie constitue «un terreau fertile» pour les grands appétits occidentaux. Le rapport du département d'Etat américain sur les droits de l'homme qui épingle paradoxalement l'Algérie et l'analyse du Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) de l'Académie militaire de West Point qui a mis sous la loupe tout ce qui se passe dans le sud de l'Algérie, prétextant que cette région névralgique de l'économie du pays, serait l'épicentre d'un éclatement populaire à cause de la marginalisation des minorités, ne peuvent être considérés que comme une introduction aux véritables visées des Occidentaux.

Une perception initiatrice de ce qui se prépare. «L'Algérie est-elle dans le collimateur des USA?» s'interrogeait L'Expression dans l'une de ses précédentes éditions! La réponse a été révélée dans les colonnes du Los Angeles Times. Le journal rapporte que «des troupes de forces spéciales américaines se sont installées en Tunisie». Cette présence dont nous avons fait foi, mais démentie par les autorités tunisiennes est justifiée, souligne le même organe de presse par le fait «d'entretenir les forces militaires tunisiennes en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme».

Les marines dont le nombre serait d'une cinquantaine ont pris position au sud de la Tunisie à un vol d'oiseau des frontières algériennes depuis le mois de janvier 2014. «Un avion de type hélicoptère s'y est installé aussi», précise encore le Los Angeles Times. Ce n'est que l'aspect visible de l'iceberg et de l'énorme stratégie de guerre annoncée contre l'Algérie.

En effet, depuis la fin de l'année précédente, des informations vérifiées font état d'une forte présence d'agents des services de renseignement américains et d'agents de l'Africom dans le Sud tunisien. Jalouse de sa souveraineté, l'Algérie avait agi en un temps record pour libérer plus de 600 otages tout en sécurisant le périmètre. L'Unité spéciale appelée à mener l'opération avait impressionné le monde entier par son professionnalisme! Même si les USA prétextent leur mobilisation en Afrique pour une coordination de lutte contre le terrorisme et pour préserver leurs intérêts, il est tout de même difficile de ne pas croire que les USA n'ont pas un intérêt pour une partie de l'Algérie dont les réserves de gaz de schiste, de gaz conventionnel et d'autres minéraux comme l'uranium. Des clans complaisants sont déjà sur le terrain pour la mise en marche de la locomotive de déstabilisation.

L’Expression algérien, du 12 mars 2014. 

dimanche, 23 mars 2014

Crimea’s Reunification with Russia and National Self-Determination Trends in Europe

20140303PHOWWW01238.jpg

Crimea’s Reunification with Russia and National Self-Determination Trends in Europe, Time for Peoples to Decide Their Own Fates

Dmitry MININ

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 
The Crimea’s return to Russia is a hot issue, but it’s not something absolutely extraordinary for Europe. Pretty soon the international community’s attention will switch over to other important and unexpected events related to the desire of peoples to implement their right to self-determination. 

As European history shows, the national states normally appear as a result of big wars: Germany and Italy were unified in the 70s of XIX century and new states emerged in the Balkans. As WWI and WWII ended, Europe has been facing vibrant events leading to the creation of new states and reshaping of borders. I thought that the period of 1989 -1992 was the time of the fourth wave of European map reshaping as the Cold War was over and a number of former socialist states dismembered. 23 states have appeared, or 24 entities if Kosovo is counted, in the place of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia as of 1989. The whole Slav world actually has gone through a transition period leading to the emergence of national states. The number is 13 now, but the figure is believed to bring bad luck, something that makes experts believe one more addition to the count – a state of Carpathian Rusyns - would just hit the spot as this is the only Slav nation still destitute of statehood and national identification. 

A group of Western states led by the United States and other NATO members actually inspired the fourth wave using the energy of nationalism to weaken a geopolitical adversary. But once started, a chain reaction is hard to stop. It has not been extinguished during all these twenty years but was rather shouldering waiting for the time to come. Back in history, a national partition used to happen after two-three generations, nowadays one generation is enough. Now the fifth wave of national identification is striking Europe and it is not necessarily linked to wars. Some peoples, especially in the West, continue to face the trends to partition, while others are in the process of unification, like in the case of Russia, for instance. Crimea is a more a left-over from the 1990s, and the main events are expected to take place soon not in the post-Soviet space, but rather in the «united» Europe. The Crimean referendum may influence the situation to some extent, but, in essence, it’ll be a backlash to the process launched by the West. These are the whims of Nemesis, the goddess of revenge. 

First of all, new tensions are getting high where national problems are still waiting for final solutions, or in the states of the Western Europe, and it is a heavy burden to be shouldered by Brussels. The risk of the use of force is high. Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been dreaming about a national entity - the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia - or joining Croatia since the days of the war. Serbs still cherish plans for the Republic of Srpska to become independent or become part of Serbia. Bosnian Muslims have been staging social protests for a few months, it’s not about economy only, they also raise the issue of national identity. The regional Muslim movement for autonomy in the Sanjak situated between Montenegro and Serbia would like to unite with the people of the same religion living in the north to make Greater Bosnia emerge. 

Serbs in In Kosovo-Mitrovica are especially elated by the Crimea events. They intend to intensify the pressure on Belgrade to make it insist they stay out of Pristina control. The Albanians in western Macedonia proclaimed the foundation of the Republic of Illirida in 1990, now they want the status of federal entity. In Bulgaria the trend to claim the larger part of eastern Macedonia is on the rise. Bulgarians believe the land rightfully belongs to them. Romania sets its eyes on Moldavia. Inside Romania the Székely Hungarians have intensified their activities. Almost all of them have Hungarian passports and demand self-determination for a large part of Transylvania as the first step on the way of unification with motherland. Slovakia and Serbian Voevodina face the same problems with Hungarian population. Formally Poland unambiguously supports the Kiev government, but experts have already expressed the opinion that the time has come to return the eastern kresy (borderlands in western Ukraine which is a former territory of the eastern provinces of Poland) into Rzeczpospolita (Poland). 

In Western Europe separatism has two trends: non-recognition of existing borders (in Belgium, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, France, Denmark and Germany) and negative attitude towards the EU itself. The November 2012 survey held in the UK showed the majority (56%) say «no» to the European Union and would prefer to leave. Prime Minister David Cameron has already said it’s a cut-and dried decision to hold a referendum on the issue. Germany follows the trend: 49% respondents there said they would be better off without the EU. Adding the sinking Ukraine to the pile of EU burdens will obviously strengthen the trend. The introduction of large-scale sanctions against Russia will inevitably lead to the general deterioration of economic situation in Europe putting the EU on the brink of disintegration. Some scenarios envision Europe as a federal state comprising 75 national states. This vision belongs to Daniel Cohn-Bendit of Germany’s Green Party and Guy Verhofstadt, former Prime Minister of Belgium, an author of a popular manifest on federal Europe. 

Talking about individual states, the partition of Great Britain is seen as inevitable. Simon Thomas, a Welsh Plaid Cymru party politician, believes that the 2014 referendum in Scotland will become an icebreaker moving across all the parts of the UK. According to him, the promulgation of Scotland’s independence means the partition of Great Britain. He believes that Scotland is the best example. Still Northern Iceland and Wales are in for changes. Simon Thomas thinks that it would be better for Wales to stay in the united Europe in case it leaves the UK. Not much time is left till the referendum slated for September 18 takes place. Scotland is attentively following the events in Crimea. It would be relevant to ask why something allowed once should be forbidden in other cases? Is it that "Gods may do what cattle may not»?

Germany still remains one state due to the inertia of recent unification, but it may not be immune to partition in the long run. It consists of different parts with the dialects that differ more than Russian and Ukrainian languages, for instance. 

The trend is on the rise – those who live in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg don’t want to share with «hangers-on» from other, less prosperous, German lands. Wilfried Scharnagl, a high-standing member of the ruling Bavarian Christian Social Union party, has recently published his sensational book Freedom from Germany trying to wake up the Bavarian political establishment which has been surreptitiously dreaming about independence. 

In Italy the Northern League (Lega Nord) has been gaining strength since the 1960-70s cherishing dreams about separating from loafers, mafiosi and hedonists in the south by uniting into Padania, the land of hard working northerners. These kinds of ideas have become most popular as the crisis set in making the regions tighten their belts to increase aid to southern provinces deep in debt. Alto Adige (South Tyrol) is mainly populated by Austrians; it became part of Italy after WWII. The separatist trends there are on the rise. Venice has already launched a five-day referendum on splitting from Rome. The poll was organized by local activists and parties, who want a future state called Republic of Veneto. This would be reminiscent of the sovereign Venetian republic that existed for more than 1,000 years. 

 

In France, the voices calling for autonomy or even secession from Paris are heard louder in Corse, Alsace and Bretagne. 

In Spain Catalonia is demanding independence with Galicia and the Basque country ready to follow suit. A referendum in Catalonia is slated for November 4, no matter the central government in Madrid opposes the action. Barcelona has no intention to retreat. Here is a one more precedent relevant to the referendum just held in Crimea. 

 The attempts to keep Flanders and Wallonia together as parts of Belgium stymie, and Brussels, the European capital, risks remaining an entity with vaguely defined status. 

There are overseas forces that have fostered the separatist trends guided by the good old «rule and divide!» principle. Of course, the USA would like to see divided the West and the East of the continent. The separatist sentiments, limited by the West against the background of opposite trends picking up steam in the East, hardly meet the Washington’s goals. The US has failed to take into consideration just one thing. The peoples’ right to self-determination does not only presuppose a partition in case they don’t want to live together, but also unification if it meets the prevailing aspirations. Russia has overcome the negative trends emerged as a result of imposed disintegration and stepped on the different path of consolidation. That’s why the White House is so vibrant in its opposition to what is happening around Ukraine. The great strategic plan of «continents big game» is getting frustrated. As the history goes to show – Crimea is just the first step. 

samedi, 22 mars 2014

RIFONDARE L’UNIONE EUROPEA

unieur.png

RIFONDARE L’UNIONE EUROPEA

Claudio Mutti

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

SOMMARIO DEL NUMERO XXXIII (1-2014) [1]

In seguito ai risultati referendari con cui una decina d’anni fa l’elettorato francese e olandese respinse la bozza della “Costituzione europea”, “Eurasia” pubblicò un breve dibattito tra me e Costanzo Preve sul tema Che farne dell’Unione Europea?

Il nostro compianto collaboratore scriveva tra l’altro: “Per poter perseguire la prospettiva politica, culturale e geopolitica di un’alleanza strategica fra i continenti europeo ed asiatico contro l’egemonismo imperiale americano, prospettiva che ha come presupposto una certa idea di Europa militarmente autonoma dagli USA e dal loro barbaro dominio, bisogna prima (sottolineo: prima) sconfiggere questa Europa, neoliberale (e quindi oligarchica) in economia ed euroatlantica (e quindi asservita) in politica e diplomazia. Senza sconfiggere prima questa Europa non solo non esiste eurasiatismo possibile, ma non esiste neppure un vero europeismo possibile”.

Da parte mia osservavo come nel risultato del voto francese e olandese si fossero manifestati non tanto il rifiuto dell’occidentalismo e del neoliberismo, quanto quei diffusi orientamenti “euroscettici” che, essendo espressione di irrealistiche nostalgie micronazionaliste se non addirittura del tribalismo etnico e localista, non solo non possono essere considerati alternativi alla globalizzazione mondialista, ma sono oggettivamente funzionali alla strategia dell’imperialismo statunitense. La mia conclusione, che qui ripropongo, era la seguente.

“La prima cosa da fare, sarebbe cominciare a gettare le basi per la formazione dei quadri di un movimento continentale che agisca per l’unità politica dell’Europa, in relazione solidale con tutte quelle forze politiche (governi, partiti, gruppi ecc.) che negli altri grandi spazi dell’Eurasia lottano per la nascita di un blocco eurasiatico capace di porre termine al tentativo statunitense di conquista del mondo. Solo un movimento politico strutturato su scala europea potrebbe avere la forza necessaria per sviluppare, nei confronti dell’Europa dei burocrati e dei tecnocrati, un’opposizione di senso algebrico opposta a quella degli euroscettici, un’opposizione cioè che sia finalizzata sì a buttar via l’acqua sporca del neoliberismo, ma anche a salvare il bambino europeo, per curarlo, riplasmarlo ed infondergli un’anima migliore”.

* * *

Oggi, a distanza di circa un decennio, l’acqua sporca è più sporca che mai e il bambino sta rischiando di morire. Siamo alla vigilia dell’elezione del nuovo Parlamento e i sondaggi dicono che il 53% dei cittadini europei non si sente europeo. A quanto pare, il “patriottismo costituzionale” teorizzato da Habermas non ha suscitato un grande entusiasmo.

D’altronde l’Europa liberaldemocratica, anziché sottrarsi all’egemonia statunitense ed avviare la costruzione di una propria potenza politica e militare nel “grande spazio” che le compete nel continente eurasiatico, stabilendo un’intesa solidale con le altre grandi potenze continentali, sembra impegnata a rinsaldare la propria collocazione nell’area occidentale ed a perpetuare il proprio asservimento nei confronti dell’imperialismo nordamericano.

L’Unione Europea e le cancellerie europee, dopo aver collaborato con Washington nel tentativo di ristrutturare il Nordafrica e il Vicino Oriente in conformità coi progetti statunitensi, si sono allineate col Dipartimento di Stato nordamericano nel sostenere la sovversione golpista in Ucraina, al fine di impedire che questo Paese confluisca nell’Unione doganale eurasiatica e trasformarlo in un avamposto della NATO nell’aggressione atlantica contro la Russia.

In tal modo l’Unione Europea coopera attivamente alla realizzazione del progetto di conquista elaborato dagli strateghi della Casa Bianca, secondo il quale l’Europa deve svolgere la funzione di una “testa di ponte democratica” [the democratic bridgehead] degli Stati Uniti in Eurasia. Scrive infatti Zbigniew Brzezinski: “L’Europa è la fondamentale testa di ponte geopolitica dell’America in Eurasia [Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia]. Il ruolo dell’America nell’Europa democratica è enorme.

Diversamente dai vincoli dell’America col Giappone, la NATO rafforza l’influenza politica e il potere militare americani sul continente eurasiatico. Con le nazioni europee alleate che ancora dipendono considerevolmente dalla protezione USA, qualunque espansione del campo d’azione politico dell’Europa è automaticamente un’espansione dell’influenza statunitense. Un’Europa allargata e una NATO allargata serviranno gl’interessi a breve e a lungo termine della politica europea. Un’Europa allargata estenderà il raggio dell’influenza americana senza creare, allo stesso tempo, un’Europa così politicamente integrata che sia in grado di sfidare gli Stati Uniti in questioni di rilievo geopolitico, in particolare nel Vicino Oriente. Un’Europa politicamente definita è essenziale per assimilare la Russia in un sistema di cooperazione globale. (…) Un’Ucraina sovrana è una componente di importanza critica in una politica di questo genere, poiché costituisce un sostegno per Stati strategicamente decisivi [strategically pivotal states] come l’Azerbaigian e l’Uzbekistan”1.

Da Mackinder in poi, la strategia geopolitica della potenza talassocratica è sempre la stessa: occorre frazionare la regione-perno, puntando sull’effetto disgregante insito in quelle linee di faglia che corrono all’interno dei cosiddetti “paesi divisi”, cioè di quei paesi in cui consistenti gruppi di popolazione appartengono a culture diverse. Un anno prima che Brzezinski teorizzi la “testa di ponte democratica” in Eurasia, Samuel Huntington, prospettando la possibilità che l’Ucraina “si spacchi in due diverse entità e che la parte orientale del paese venga annessa alla Russia” (2), considera necessario “un forte ed efficace sostegno occidentale, che a sua volta potrebbe giungere solo qualora i rapporti tra Russia e Occidente si deteriorassero come ai tempi della Guerra fredda” (3).


L’interesse vitale dell’Europa non coincide coi piani di conquista nordamericani. L’Europa e la Russia, se vogliono esercitare un peso decisivo sulla ripartizione del potere mondiale, devono instaurare una stretta intesa che obbedisca agl’imperativi della loro complementarità geoeconomica e stabilire un’alleanza politico-militare che contribuisca alla difesa della sovranità eurasiatica. Solo così sarà possibile controbilanciare le iniziative intese a destabilizzare il Continente, risolvere le questioni territoriali, mantenere il controllo delle risorse naturali e regolare i flussi demografici disordinati.

Quando l’Europa lo capirà, una “rifondazione” dell’Unione Europea sarà inevitabile.

1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, “Foreign Affairs”, Sept.-Oct. 1997, pp. 53-57.
2. Samuel P. Huntington, Lo scontro delle civiltà e il nuovo ordine mondiale, Garzanti, Milano 2001, p. 241.
3. Samuel P. Huntington, op. cit., p. 242.

XXXIII (1-2014)  

Rifondare l’Unione Europea

SOMMARIO

Editoriale

Claudio Mutti, Rifondare l’Unione Europea

Dossario – Rifondare l’Unione Europea

Alessandra Colla, Il ritorno dell’antica fanciulla

Ali Reza Jalali, L’UE: evoluzione storica, istituzioni, rapporti con gli Stati membri

Spartaco A. Puttini, Stati Uniti d’Europa o Europa degli Stati Uniti?

Fabio Falchi, Europeismo contro euroatlantismo

Aldo Braccio, Europa non sovrana: il ruolo della Commissione

Stefano Vernole, La Germania e la tentazione dell’Europa a due velocità

Andrea Turi, Dove Europa nacque, l’Europa muore

Alessandro Lattanzio, I Gruppi Tattici ed altre formazioni

Antonino Galloni, Europa, dove ci porti?

Giuseppe Cappelluti, Europa e Russia: un rapporto da ricostruire

Maria Amoroso, Le Relazioni dell’UE con la Russia

Giovanni Armillotta, Multipartitismo e frontismo nell’Europa socialista

Katalin Egresi, Esperienze costituzionali ungheresi e italiane

Giacomo Gabellini, Sciacalli e sicari all’assalto dell’Europa

Documenti

AA. VV., Il ratto di Europa

Jean Thiriart, La geopolitica, l’Impero, l’Europa

Progetto per una più grande Europa

Interviste

Intervista a Vaqif Sadiqov, Ambasciatore della Repubblica dell’Azerbaigian in Italia a cura di Giuliano Bifolchi

vendredi, 21 mars 2014

Algérie : ça va mal finir

timthumb (2)_8.jpg

Algérie : ça va mal finir

Tout le monde ne parle que de la crise Ukraine-Russie, mais il faut se pencher sur ce qui se passe en Algérie. On critique beaucoup M. Poutine, figure emblématique du tyran pour un Occident auto satisfait, mais on semble négliger le régime algérien, ubuesque, incompétent, oligarchique. Avec lequel pourtant la France entretient les meilleures relations, à la limite de la servilité, n’osant pas émettre contre lui la moindre critique (1).

Le 17 avril, le président Bouteflika, 77 ans, rendu impotent par un AVC, se présente pour un 4e mandat, après 15 ans de pouvoir. Évidemment, il ne pourra pas gouverner, mais il est la marionnette d’un clan, ou plutôt de plusieurs. L’Algérie danse sur une poudrière. Le 15 avril, une manifestation a eu lieu à Alger, avec le mouvement ”Barakat” (”Ça suffit !”), dénonçant une mascarade électorale. Dans le même temps, éclataient à Ghardaïa, à 600 km au sud de la capitale, des affrontements interethniques très violents. Ils opposaient les Mozabites (Berbères) et les Châambas (Arabes). Il y eut plus de 100 blessés graves et des pillages ou incendies de commerces et de maisons berbères. Ce n’est qu’un début.  L’Algérie se dirige vers une très grave crise.

Une nouvelle guerre civile couve, avec trois types d’antagonisme : 1) Islamistes contre laïcs ; 2) Berbères contre Arabes ; 3) luttes de pouvoir au sein de l’appareil d’État, impliquant le FLN, le RND et l’Armée. Depuis son indépendance, l’Algérie, qui aurait pu être la Californie de l’Afrique du Nord, est un pays de malheur. En dépit de ses ressources primaires pétro-gazières qui sont techniquement gérées par des Occidentaux et qui amènent à l’Algérie la majorité de ses devises, ce pays n’a su développer aucun secteur économique national performant. Le chômage y est endémique, la pauvreté persistante, la bureaucratie pachydermique. À l’inverse des pays d’Asie. Il y a donc bien un problème intrinsèque à ces populations. 

 Tout le monde le sait et le murmure mais personne n’ose le dire : du temps de la présence française, les populations d’Algérie vivaient bien mieux qu’aujourd’hui. D’ailleurs, l’importance de l’immigration des Algériens en France témoigne de leur fuite hors de leur propre pays pour venir vivre chez l’ancienne puissance coloniale. C’est à la fois une schizophrénie (ils restent nationalistes algériens tout en détestant le régime de leur pays) et un terrible aveu d’impuissance.

En Algérie, ça va éclater. Une guerre civile, extrêmement compliquée (comme dans tous les pays arabo-musulmans et de l’arc proche-oriental), se prépare. La raison profonde en est une instabilité psycho-ethnique de ces populations, incapables de vivre dans l’harmonie. L’islam ne fait qu’aggraver les choses. La même chose se remarque en Amérique du Sud, zone d’intenses mélanges  ethniques : mais elle est géopolitiquement décentrée, donc  de bien moindre importance que le Maghreb et le Proche Orient.

Pour ne rien arranger, la Libye voisine sombre dans le chaos : effondrement de la production pétrolière, délitement de l’État, éclatement du pays en zones néo-tribales, montée des affrontements, installation de bases armées islamistes. Bravo à ceux qui ont aidé à renverser le régime de Kadhafi. Quant à la Tunisie, les suites du ”printemps arabe”, véritable duperie, s’annoncent sous de très mauvaises augures. (2)

La prédiction que l’on peut faire, c’est que l’Algérie présente de grands risques de s’embraser, encore plus violemment que dans les années 90. Avec, à ses portes la Tunisie et la Libye, elles aussi menacées d’incendie. Et, partout en embuscade, l’islamisme. Pour la France, qui comporte de très nombreuses communautés originaires de l’Algérie et du Maghreb, la nouvelle est inquiétante et les conséquences peuvent être gravissimes. 

Notes:

(1) Deux causes : la mauvaise conscience coloniale de la repentance, fabriquée par les idéologies de gauche, et la présence en France de populations d’origine algérienne qu’il faut ménager.

(2) Pour l’instant, à part le Maroc et les monarchies du Golfe (qui sont toutes des autocraties héréditaires), tous les pays arabo-musulmans, Algérie, Tunisie, Libye, Égypte, Syrie, Liban, Irak sont dans une situation explosive. À l’échelle du monde, 80 % des pays où l’islam est majoritaire ou très présent connaissent un état endémique d’instabilité pouvant dégénérer à tout moment. 

jeudi, 20 mars 2014

Der Westen, Russland, China und die Ukraine

Ukraine-en-e.jpg

«Rechtzeitig die bereits brennende Lunte aus dem Benzinfass nehmen»

Der Westen, Russland, China und die Ukraine

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch

von Willy Wimmer, Staatssekretär des Bundesministers der Verteidigung a.D., Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages 1976–2009

Die Nachrichten wegen der Ukraine überschlagen sich und der schöne Schein von Sotschi mit den glänzend gestimmten Sportlern ist schneller zerstoben, als das allen lieb sein konnte.
Dennoch sollten wir in der Flut der Nachrichten über Ereignisse gut 700 Kilometer von Berlin entfernt die Meldung über ein fürchterliches Massaker in der chinesischen Stadt Kunming nicht übersehen oder falsch einordnen. Kunming als Hauptstadt der chinesischen Provinz Yünnan beeindruckt eigentlich durch seinen Charme, der an lebenslustige Gebiete am Mittelmeer erinnert. Am letzten Wochenende kam der Tod nach Kunming, als fast 30 Menschen ermordet und mehr als 100 Menschen schwer verletzt wurden. Weit weg?
Erinnern wir uns an den Vorabend des völkerrechtswidrigen Krieges gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien, dessen Beginn sich in diesen Tagen zum 15. Male jährt. Über Monate hatte es im chinesischen Westen Anschlag über Anschlag gegeben. Tote und Verletzte waren die Folge. Prominente Schauspieler aus Hollywood eröffneten eine Kampagne wegen Tibet. Es war so dramatisch, dass eine kriegerische Auseinandersetzung wegen Tibet erwartet wurde. Nicht nur im Spiegel konnte jeder lesen, dass wohl amerikanische Dienste hinter den Ereignissen im Westen Chinas stünden.
Das, was losbrach, waren die Bombenangriffe auf Belgrad, mitten im europäischen Kerngebiet, und das Vehikel war die albanische Terrororganisation UÇK, auf die die Vereinigten Staaten und später die gesamte Nato gesetzt hatte, um ihre Ziele in der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien durchzusetzen.


Zeichen an der Wand sind häufiger zu sehen, als uns lieb sein kann. Das bedeutet für uns, dass wegen der gleichzeitig stattfindenden Umbrüche in der Ukraine das Gesamtbild nicht aus den Augen gelassen werden darf.


Es ist etwas ganz Grosses im Gange, das uns alle zerreissen kann. Wer heute Russland aus den G 8 schmeissen will, der hat keine Hemmungen, morgen China mit dem Rauswurf aus der Welthandelsorganisation zu drohen und die Drohung auch wahrzumachen. Es ist Endspiel-Zeit, und es ist geradezu spektakulär, wie der amerikanische Aussenminister John Kerry sich als Schutzengel des Völkerrechtes aufspielt.


Dennoch ist das amerikanische Verhalten seit dem völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg gegen Belgrad und die folgenden, ebenfalls klassischen Aggressionskriege gegen den Irak u. a., keine Ausrede für andere, in amerikanische Muster der letzten Jahrzehnte zu verfallen. Aber tun sie das? Man ist heute schnell bei der Hand, den russischen Präsidenten Putin mit Adolf Hitler zu vergleichen, wie es in diesen Tagen ein ehemaliger tschechischer Aussenminister getan hat. Fürst Schwarzenberg hat gut reden, waren es doch die Russen, die gnadenlos unter Adolf Hitler ihr Blut vergiessen mussten. Peinlicher geht es nicht mehr.


Aber die Ukraine wird uns um die Ohren fliegen, auch wenn es seit Joschka Fischer einen Nato-Modus zu geben scheint, wenn Ziele angeleuchtet werden. Janukowitsch ist weg, und wer will ihm eine Träne nachweinen? Bei den Protzvillen? Als wenn das bis zum Ringen um das Assoziierungsabkommen irgend jemanden in Brüssel, Berlin, London oder Washington gestört hätte. In der Staatskasse noch knapp 300 000 Euro? Wo waren die peniblen Brüsseler Schlaumeier bei der Überprüfung der Kiewer Daten vor dem angepeilten Abkommen zwecks grösserer Nähe der Ukraine zur Europäischen Union?


Von ganz neuer Qualität dürfte jedoch sein, dass nicht nur die US-amerikanische Staatssekretärin Nuland den Überlegungen zur Manipulation der neuen Regierung in der Ukraine freien Lauf gelassen hat. Hier wurde zum ersten Mal in der neueren Geschichte eine Regierung, die nach Bekundungen aller – von der OSZE bis zum Europa-Rat – durch faire und freie Wahlen zustande gekommen war, aus dem Amt geputscht, und alle Abkommen zur Krisenbeilegung wurden beiseite gefegt.


Das geschah wohlgemerkt auch und gerade durch Kräfte, die einen gesamteuropäischen Aufschrei der Abscheu hätten hervorrufen müssen. Noch in der Nacht der Machtergreifung wurde gegen die russischsprachigen Bewohner der Ukraine mobil gemacht. Man hatte nichts Eiligeres zu tun, als ihnen die Zerstörung ihrer Bürgerrechte in Aussicht zu stellen. Es war eben auch der ­politische Mob, der anschliessend drohte, durch die gesamte Ukraine zu fegen.


Wegen des unmittelbar drohenden Finanzkollapses der Ukraine droht sich dort ein Furor breitzumachen, der zwar heute nach dem Westen ruft, aber dem Heulen und Zähneknirschen drohen, wenn ihn die westeuropäische und amerikanische Realität erreicht.
Washington scheint zu den letzten Mitteln vor einer Kriegserklärung an die Russische Föderation greifen zu wollen, wenn man die Herren Obama und Kerry hört. Wäre es wegen der Dimension des von der Ukraine ausgehenden Urknalls für ganz Europa nicht sinnvoller gewesen, die Fäden zusammenzuhalten? Schliesslich war es Moskau, das der maroden Ukraine noch mehr Geld nachwerfen wollte, als der in diesen Dingen äusserst penible Westen.


Und Putin? Hätte er zuwarten sollen, bis die Kiewer Machtübernahme die russische Grenze erreicht hätte? Die Träger des neuen Geistes waren alle auf dem Weg. Was in Teufels Namen hat nach der Kiewer Machtübernahme die neuen Machthaber dazu veranlasst, nun jeden wichtigen Amtsträger im ganzen Land aus dem Amt zu jagen und durch eigene Günstlinge zu ersetzen? Der russische Präsident Putin hat durch die Form seiner Reaktion diesem Tun ein Halt-Signal gesetzt, für das man ihm vielleicht noch einmal sehr dankbar sein wird. Die Souveränität und territoriale Integrität auch der Ukraine stehen ausser Frage. Rechtzeitig die bereits brennende Lunte aus dem Benzinfass zu nehmen, wie es Putin gemacht hat, sollte dann als Chance begriffen werden, wenn das russische Handeln nicht als Gefährdung der eigenen westlichen Absichten gesehen wird.    •

Westeuropäische Medien wie gleichgeschaltet unter US-Oberbefehl?

Offener Brief an die Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU zur Sitzung vom 6. März 2014

Sehr verehrte Damen,
sehr geehrte Herren,
nach den Standards, die in der Europäischen Union bei schwierigen Entwicklungen üblich sind, müssten die Staats- und Regierungschefs bei ihrem Treffen in Brüssel wegen der Lage in der Ukraine festlegen, dass
1.    zu den neuen Machthabern in Kiew auf der Regierungsebene keine Kontakte stattfinden, solange es ernsthafte und begründete Zweifel an der Rechtmässigkeit der neuen Organe in Kiew gibt,
2.    so lange davon ausgegangen werden muss, dass in hohen und höchsten Ämtern der neuen Organe in Kiew sich Personen befinden, deren politische Haltung in ganz Europa Abscheu wegen ihres Gedankengutes hervorruft, sollte ein Boykott der EU […] über die Organe in Kiew so lange verhängt werden, bis diese Personen nicht mehr den im Amt befindlichen Organen in Kiew angehören. Für die Bundesregierung in Berlin ist es nicht akzeptabel, dass vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe ein Verbot der NPD durchgesetzt werden soll, während man gleichzeitig in Kiew mit denen unter einer Decke steckt, die engste Kontakte zur NPD pflegen.
Es ist in hohem Masse bedauerlich, dass in Westeuropa die Medien auf die krisenhafte Entwicklung so reagieren, als wären sie gleichgeschaltet und unterstünden amerikanischem Oberbefehl. […]
In der letzten Woche drohten die Flammen des Maidan in Kiew auf die ganze Ukraine überzugreifen. Eine im Bürgerkrieg versinkende Ukraine hätte ganz Europa mit in den Untergang gerissen. Diese Gefahr ist immer noch nicht vom Tisch, weil die wirtschaftlichen Gefahren erst noch auf alle zukommen. Das besonnene und deutliche Auftreten der russischen Regierung unter Präsident Putin hat Europa und der Welt eine Chance gegeben, Souveränität und territoriale Integrität der Ukraine zu erhalten und uns vor dem Furor eines Bürgerkrieges in der Ukraine zu bewahren.
Die Russische Föderation hat in den Jahren, die mit dem ordinären Angriffskrieg der Nato gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien vor fast genau 15 Jahren und zu einem friedensbedrohenden und völkerrechtswidrigen Verhalten der USA auch in anderen Teilen der Welt führten, sich zum Völkerrecht und seinen tragenden Grundsätzen bekannt. Ohne dieses Völkerrecht und vor allem die Charta der Vereinten Nationen wird das Schicksal Europas mehr denn je ungewiss sein. […]

Willy Wimmer, Staatssekretär des Bundesministers der Verteidigung a.D., Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages 1976–2009

mercredi, 19 mars 2014

La Crise ukrainienne et la troisième voie géopolitique

LB_Ukraina_s_ndag_291339c.jpg

La Crise ukrainienne et la troisième voie géopolitique

par Jure Vujic

Ex: http://www.polemia.com

«L’Eurasisme russe aurait tout intérêt à ménager les nationalismes européens de cet espace centre-européen et de l’espace pontique de la mer Noire y compris l’Ukraine, plutôt que de nier leurs identités nationales et d’attiser leurs positions russophobes.»

♦ Polémia a reçu de son contributeur franco-croate, Jure Georges Vujic, une analyse géopolitique de la crise ukrainienne. Donner accès à la diversité des points de vue fait partie de notre ligne éditoriale. Nous la soumettons donc à la réflexion de nos lecteurs.
Polémia

Il semblerait que la crise ukrainienne divise la mouvance nationale et eurasiste en deux camps, le premier soutenant l’opposition nationaliste ukrainienne en tant que vivier identitaire et vecteur national-révolutionnaire, le second, le camp des «eurasistes» russophiles, qui, pour des raisons géopolitiques anti-atlantistes, soutiennent l’intervention russe en Crimée. Pourtant, cette vision binaire  demeure quelque peu simplificatrice. C’est pourquoi je réitère « qu’il faut savoir raison garder » et que la démesure dans l’analyse géopolitique, le jusqu’au-boutisme et l’engouement belliciste ne font que conforter une fois de plus l‘hybris  et le conflit entre des peuples européens et, une fois n’est pas coutume, sur la terre européenne.

Bien sûr, il faut rappeler que  suite à la décision du gouvernement élu de ne pas signer d’accords commerciaux avec l’Union européenne, le camp atlantiste et américain a tenté d’orchestrer une seconde « Révolution orange » cette fois-ci en s’appuyant et en manipulant des groupes ultranationalistes ukrainiens aux fins  d’installer un pouvoir pro-occidental à Kiev. Le nationalisme ukrainien extrêmement dynamique est autant antirusse qu’antioccidental alors que les arguments de l’adhésion à l’UE servent uniquement de levier d’émancipation de la tutelle russe. Par ailleurs, l’expérience de la Hongrie de Orban démontre très bien que l’on peut être dans l’UE et mener une politique nationale et souverainiste.

D’une part, je ne suis pas convaincu qu’il s’agisse d’une confrontation entre une vision eurasiste pro-russe et un nationalisme ukrainien pro-atlantiste. Il faut  avoir à l’esprit la question de la légitimité des manifestations du peuple ukrainien systématiquement spolié et paupérisé par des régimes corrompus et oligarchiques successifs, tour à tour pro-occidentaux et pro-russes (la famille du présidentViktor Ianoukovitch s’est enrichie de près de 8 milliards d’euros par an). D’autre part, l’opposition entre le sud-est russophone de l’Ukraine et l’EuroMaidan s’est cristallisée en raison du ressentiment antirusse qui s’est développé dans la partie occidentale de l’Ukraine. Si une partie des habitants s’est organisée en formations paramilitaires et a manifesté contre le nouveau gouvernement de Kiev, c’est parce que la révolution a gagné à ses yeux une connotation antirusse plutôt que pro-européenne.

Il est en effet déplorable que l’Ukraine soit entre le marteau et l’enclume, et  n’ait finalement que le choix entre l’intégration européenne pro-atlantiste et la soumission au voisin russe. C’est dans les leçons de l’histoire européenne qu’il faut peut-être chercher la solution. « L’Ukraine a toujours aspiré à être libre » a écrit Voltaire dans son Histoire de Charles XII, à propos de l’hetman Mazeppa. L’identité ukrainienne s’est cimentée il y a une dizaine de siècles et n’est pas près d’être russifiée, quand bien même son histoire reste étroitement liée à la Russie. L’Ukraine est et restera un pays écartelé entre le géant eurasiatique qu’est la Russie à l’est, et l’Europe centrale beaucoup plus proche de l’Occident. Etymologiquement le nom d’’Ukraine est associé à celui de « marche », et c’est ainsi qu’il faut la traiter en tant qu’espace géopolitique pontique et médian. C’est pourquoi la Russie aurait tout intérêt à traiter le peuple ukrainien et l’identité ukrainienne sur un pied d’égalité et de réciprocité plutôt qu’obstinément nier leur existence nationale, les associer à des «petits Russes», ce qui ne fera qu’exacerber le sentiment ukrainien antieurasiste et antirusse.

La Crimée se prononce pour son rattachement à la Russie

L’identité ukrainienne tout comme l’histoire des peuples cavaliers, de souche européenne, fait partie intégrante de notre héritage indo-européen le plus ancien tout comme le constitue l’héritage slavo-russe et orthodoxe. Il faut rappeler que c’est un chercheur ukrainien Iaroslav Lebedynsky, qui enseigne à l’Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales, qui nous a livré de remarquables  récits historiques sur les Scythes, les Sarmates, les Saces, les Cimmériens, les Iazyges et les Roxolans, les Alains, etc. qui témoignent de l’identité pluriséculaire de ces peuples de souche européenne sur cet espace eurasiatique qui va de l’Europe centrale jusqu’aux confins de la Sibérie orientale, espace qui ne possède pas de frontières naturelles comme l’expliquait le général Heinrich Jordis von Lohausen dans son traité de géopolitique. En effet, l’importance géostratégique pontique de l’Ukraine, bordée par la mer Noire et la mer d’Azov au sud et située entre l’Europe occidentale et la masse continentale eurasiatique, dépend en majeure partie de sa configuration frontalière. Les régions historiques ukrainiennes, comme la Volhynie et la Galicie (jadis polono-lituaniennes), la Bukovine (jadis moldave) ou la Méotide (jadis tatare criméenne), s’étendent  également sur les pays voisins, ouvrant ainsi une profondeur stratégique à la Russie au nord et à l’est, à la Biélorussie au nord, à la Pologne, à la Slovaquie et la Hongrie à l’ouest et à la Roumanie et la Moldavie au sud-ouest.

Bien sûr, il convient d’un point de vue géopolitique de soutenir le projet eurasiste russe comme facteur de rééquilibrage multipolaire face aux menées néo-impériales atlantistes, mais ce projet géopolitique grand-européen eurasiste doit être avant tout un projet fédérateur, de coopération géopolitique, fondé sur le respect de tous les peuples européens, sur le respect des souverainetés nationales et sur le principe de subsidiarité. L’affirmation agressive et exclusiviste de la composante slavo-orthodoxe et « grand-russe » dans le projet eurasiste, surtout dans les territoires centre-européens et du sud-est européen catholiques qui gardent un mauvais souvenir de l’expérience soviétique, ne fera au contraire que raviver les tensions entre les peuples européens, ce qui fait le jeu de la stratégie atlantiste qui divise pour régner. Par ailleurs, tout comme il convient de dénoncer la fragmentation ethno-confessionnelle qui est à l’œuvre au Moyen-Orient en tant qu’instrument de domination atlantiste, il convient aussi de se méfier des constructions annexionnistes ou irrédentistes linguistiques « grand-russes » sous prétexte d’unification « des terres russophones » qui peuvent à long terme avoir les mêmes effets dissolvants en Eurasie dans le Caucase et en  Europe centrale, car le même argument linguistique pourrait justifier la revendication séparatiste d’ethnies ou de populations non-européennes sur le sol européen. En effet, le déchaînement du nationalisme ethno-confessionnel à l’ouest de l’Ukraine inquiète les minorités ethniques et notamment les Polonais, les Hongrois et les Roumains. Les Tatares de Crimée qui semblent avoir déjà choisi leur rattachement à la Russie ne peuvent pas rester à l’écart de la recomposition en cours à l’ouest et au sud-ouest d’Ukraine. Ainsi le groupe  ethnique des Gagaouzes qui forment une communauté homogène en Moldavie s’est déjà prononcé par référendum pour l’intégration eurasienne. On assiste également à une montée en puissance du facteur turcophone dans la région du Caucase et dans les Balkans (en Bosnie Herzégovine), plus particulièrement dans le contexte des processus d’intégration dans l’espace eurasien.

Il faut rappeler que l’Ukraine, au-delà du contexte très particulier de ce pays (en réalité constitué de deux ensembles historiquement antagonistes, l’un catholique-uniate, tourné vers l’ouest et l’autre orthodoxe proche de la Russie), constitue un exemple des possibilités de manipulation d’un sentiment national. Pourtant je ne suis pas certain qu’un recentrage « grand-russe » de l’Ukraine constitue un pôle de stabilité géopolitique eurasiatique à long terme dans la mesure où le sentiment antirusse en Ukraine est fortement enraciné et cela depuis plusieurs siècles. La perception du projet eurasiste vu de Paris, Moscou, Vienne, Berlin, Zagreb, Kiev est très différente et variable. Dans les ex-pays du bloc soviétique, l’eurasisme est souvent perçu comme une idéologie néocoloniale «  grande russe  » et post-soviétique, car ces pays ont retrouvé leur indépendance nationale et étatique dans les années 1990 après la chute du Mur de Berlin (et non au XVIIIe ou XIXe siècle), et il est compréhensible qu’ils restent récalcitrants à tout projet fédérateur, multinational et/ou néo-impérial, alors que d’autres pays européens qui ont vécu « leur printemps des peuples » en 1848 ou avant, sont plus ouverts au discours eurasiste grand-continental. Il faut alors tenir compte de ces variables pondérables de psychologie collective (au même titre que les fameuses guerres de représentation) lorsqu’on adopte une position géopolitique  pan-européenne. L’eurasisme ne devrait pas évoluer vers un projet néocolonial et impérialiste (L’idée d’empire n’est pas réductible à l’impérialisme) mais rester fidèle à l’idéal de l’empire en tant qu’unité organique et œcuménique dans la diversité. Cet eurasisme géopolitique n’a jamais été aussi cohérent et  stable que lorsqu’il a été respectueux des idendités, et des diverses composantes impériales comme cela a été le cas lors de l’alliance austro-franco-russe du XVIIIe siècle, de la Sainte-Alliance et de l’Union des Trois Empereurs, voire en tant que projets d’alliance franco-germano-austro-russe de Gabriel Hanotaux (1853-1944), avant 1914.

Il convient également de constater que le projet eurasiste « grand-européen » ne peut reposer uniquement sur un pôle russo-centré, et que si l’on raisonne en termes de continent (de l’Atlantique à la Sibérie), il semblerait que ce projet soit à double vitesse, l’un russo-centré autour de l’union eurasiatique qui s’articule autour de la composante russo-slavo-orthodoxe et l’autre que l’on peut qualifier d’eurasiste-médian ou centre-européen (voire germano-slave mitteleuropéen) qui s’étend de l’Europe occidentale héritière de l’empire Carolingien (héritière de l’Empire romain) et l’eurasisme central-danubien qui s’étend le long de l’ancien limes danubien, à son embouchure dans la mer Noire, jusqu’à l’espace scythien de la Dobroudja, à la charnière de la Roumanie et de la Bulgarie actuelles. Le point de jonction de l’Eurasie russo-centré et de cette Eurasie centre–européenne est l’Ukraine qui de par sa position pontique relie et verrouille ainsi l’espace centre-européen pannonien et la profondeur eurasiatique vers l’est. Pourtant ce qui différencie àl’heure actuelle ces deux projets eurasiens complémentaires, c’est l’héritage historique de l’Union soviétique. En effet l’ensemble des peuples rattachés à la couronne austro-hongroise (Croates, Slovaques, Hongrois, Tchèques) gardent un mauvais souvenir de la férule communiste et des Etats multinationaux fantoches tels que la Yougoslavie titiste et la Tchécoslovaquie en tant que zones tampons et cordons sanitaires créés par la politique britannique dans les Balkans. C’est la raison pour laquelle l’Eurasisme russe aurait tout intérêt à ménager les nationalismes européens de cet espace centre-européen et de l’espace pontique de la mer Noire y compris l’Ukraine, plutȏt que de nier leurs identités nationales et d’attiser leurs positions russophobes.

Ainsi la crise ukrainienne peut être l’occasion ou jamais de réfléchir et de peut-être redéfinir les axes géopolitiques d’une Eurasie triarchique reposant sur la triplice géopolitique carolingienne-occidentale/catholique autro-hongroise et centre-européenne/slavo-orthodoxe eurasiatique.

Jure Georges Vujic
11/03/2014

Correspondance Polémia – 16/03/2014

Turkey and Crimea

Turkey_Ukraine_Russia.JPEG-01030_t607.JPG

Turkey and Crimea

Nikolai BOBKIN

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 
On 16 March, the people of Crimea will independently determine their own future. Opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans (75-80 percent) have already decided in favour of becoming part of the Russian Federation. Crimea is being given a unique opportunity to reunite with its historic homeland. Several days ago, Barak Obama called the overthrow of the legitimate authorities in Kiev a triumph of democracy. Now Crimea will give President Obama a lesson in democracy... 

By supporting the coup, the US has laid the foundations for a broad restructuring process of the Ukrainian state into a looser confederation of regions. The principle of self-determination, to which the people of Crimea are adhering, is enshrined in international law, while non-recognition of the results of the people’s will would be the latest evidence of the American establishment’s commitment to the project of creating a ‘Ukrainian Reich’ within former Ukraine. The Western media are lying when they talk about the so-called full solidarity of all NATO countries with the American position. In truth, Washington’s position is not supported by many of those with a special interest in Crimea and these include Turkey, since Crimea is home to Crimean Tatars, who are ethnically close to Turks.

Ankara is worried about the risk of deepening the political crisis in Ukraine. While offering to accept the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity as a basis for resolving the conflict, the Turkish Foreign Ministry is nevertheless warning Kiev against creating military tension in Crimea, where «our kinsmen – the Crimean Tatars» live. In the past, Ankara has done much for Crimea to become the Tatars’ homeland again. Kiev, however, has never given the development of Crimea much attention, removing up to 80 percent of the autonomous republic’s revenue and giving nothing back in return. For Turkey, with its highly-developed tourism industry, the deplorable state of tourism in Crimea, as well as the peninsula’s infrastructure, which has fallen into complete disrepair and has not been modernised since Soviet times, are compelling evidence of Kiev’s disdain for the fate of the Crimean people. Many in Turkey well understand why Crimea becoming part of Russia is the natural desire of the overwhelming majority of those living on the peninsula. Turkey’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, believes that «Crimea should not be an area of military tension; it should be a centre of prosperity, tourism, and intercultural relations».

At the same time, the Turkish government is being forced to consider its own position with regard to Crimea, and the internal forces that adhere to the opposite point of view. In some parts of the country, the compatriots of Crimean Tatars are organising demonstrations against Crimea becoming part of Russia. Zafer Karatay, a Tatar member of the Turkish Assembly, is calling for Ankara to intervene in Crimea and a confrontation with Russia. His opponents respond: «What business do we have in Crimea? Why is Crimea so important?» Well, the Kiev scenario of the illegal overthrow of President Yanukovych may well be used by the Americans to change the leadership in Turkey. In this regard, Prime Minister Erdoğan has clearly stated that it is not a case of Turkey choosing between Moscow and Washington or Ukraine and Russia, it is a case of choosing between a tool of destabilisation like the pro-American Maidan protests and adhering to the fundamental principles of international law. 

Many Turkish politicians disliked Davutoğlu’s hasty trip to Kiev immediately following the coup. Given that Ankara does not have an answer to the question «What should Turkey do now?», such a visit is definitely cause for bewilderment. Davutoğlu’s statement, meanwhile, «that Crimean Tatars are currently the main apologists for Ukraine’s territorial integrity» shocked many observers. They reminded the minister of the number of Turkish compatriots in the 46-million strong Ukraine, as well as the fact that Turkey had a strategic partnership with the previous legitimate authorities in Kiev to which neither Turchynov nor Yatsenyuk are able to add anything except a hatred of Russia. Davutoğlu’s assurances regarding the fact that the new regime in Kiev «will take all necessary measures to protect the rights of Turks living in Crimea» has also given rise to scepticism. It is unlikely that the fascist authorities in Kiev currently threatening Ukraine’s multimillion Russian population are going to concern themselves with the fate of the relatively small Crimean Tatar community. Pragmatists in the Turkish government have warned the head of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, who has promised Kiev «political, international and economic support to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity», against any hasty actions and even statements towards Moscow. 

Commenting on events in Kiev, the Turkish Minister for EU affairs, Mevlut Çavuşoğlu, referred to the European’s approach towards Ukraine as completely wrong, and that asking Ukrainians to choose between Europe and Russia was a grave political mistake. «Russia»,Çavuşoğlu pointed out, «is part of the European continent.» Turkey still does not understand why Brussels, which thinks that Turkey does not meet its high democratic standards and for many years has refused Turkey’s accession to the EU, has decided that the new Ukraine is more democratic than Turkey – and that is even after the bloody coup carried out by Western stooges. There is the feeling that supporting the new regime in Kiev could cost Erdogan’s government dearly.

Should Turkey join sanctions against Moscow, the country’s economists are predicting the collapse of the national economy, which is closely tied to Russian hydrocarbon supplies. They consider energy exports from Russia to be «a national security issue» and are warning that even Europe, which is also dependent on Russian gas, has not allowed itself to cross the line of open hostility to Moscow, despite unprecedented pressure from Washington. Turkey is still a growing market for Russia, and its gas supplies to the country increase by 4-5 percent annually and exceed 30 billion cubic metres. There is a desire to diversify Ankara’s sources, but there is no real alternative to Russian blue-sky fuel. America’s promises to replace Russian gas with its own shale surrogate in connection with calls to support anti-Russian sanctions are eliciting a smile from Turkish experts. The infrastructure needed for the supply of liquefied fuel would be more expensive than the cost of Russian supplies for the next 5-7 years. And it is not just Turkey’s energy economy that will lose out. Trade between Russia and Turkey exceeds 33 billion dollars, and nearly four million Russians visit Turkey every year, leaving behind at least USD 4 billion. 

The Turkish media has also made explicit references to the fact that the significance of Ukraine and Russia for Turkey’s foreign policy is incomparable. Turkish political observer Fuat Kozluklu, meanwhile, writes that Russia’s decision to use force if necessary to protect Ukraine’s Russian and Russian-speaking population was a good deterrent to the Ukrainian radicals and the Western politicians watching over them. Putin’s determination to stand up for the interests of Russians in his neighbouring country has revealed Russia’s real strength, while Moscow’s actions have the sole intention of preventing the further escalation of tensions in Ukraine. It is also from this point of view that many Turkish analysts are regarding the forthcoming referendum in Crimea.

 

Russland und die Krim

Russland und die Krim

von Gereon Breuer

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Kriegsspiele. Was haben Merkel und Steinmeier gemeinsam? Ihnen fehlt jede Vorstellung des strategischen Werts der Geopolitik für außenpolitisches Handeln. Das Ergebnis: Außenpolitischer Dilettantismus.

Ohnehin genießt die Geopolitik in Deutschland seit dem Ende des II. Weltkriegs einen eher schlechten Ruf. Dieser ist vor allem auf der Missinterpretation politischer Intellektueller gegründet, dass die Wahrnehmung eigener Interessen per se als „böse“ gelte. Das zeigt nun auch wieder die „Krim-​Krise“. Schon allein von einer Krise zu sprechen offenbart die schlichte Natur dessen, der sich bemüßigt fühlt, die Wahrnehmung von Interessen mit einer Krise zu assoziieren. Denn Russland unternimmt auf der Krim, bei der es sich noch dazu um eine autonome Republik handelt, nichts anderes, als in Zeiten unsicherer politischer Verhältnisse in der Ukraine die eigene Einflusssphäre zu wahren. Das heißt konkret: Den Stützpunkt der Schwarzmeerflotte und damit die maritime Herrschaft über das Schwarze Meer zu sichern.

In geostrategischer Hinsicht ist das ein sehr kluges und umsichtiges Verhalten. Dass die EU – und vor allem Deutschland – Russland deshalb nun mit Sanktionen drohen, zeigt, dass die bürokratischen Führer in Berlin und Brüssel nicht verstanden haben: „Staaten haben keine Freunde, nur Interessen.“ Dieses unter anderen dem britischen Premierminister Ewald Gladstone zugeschriebene Diktum lässt ahnen, dass Außenpolitik vor allem egoistisch funktioniert oder eben nicht. Wladimir Putin scheint das verstanden zu haben und in seinem Handeln äußert sich, was Halford Mackinder (18611947) in seiner „Heartland-​Theory“ beziehungsweise „Herzland-​Theorie“ niederlegte: „Wer Osteuropa beherrscht, kommandiert das Herzland, wer das Herzland beherrscht, kommandiert die Weltinsel, wer die Weltinsel beherrscht, kontrolliert die Welt.“

Bedeutung der „Herzland-​Theorie“

Der britische Geograph und Geopolitiker verstand unter der Weltinsel Eurasien und den afrikanischen Kontinent. Das Herzland sah er in Sibirien und im europäischen Russland konstituiert.Heartland Er ging davon aus, dass unter anderem die Rohstoffreserven der Weltinsel es ermöglichen würden, von dort aus alle anderen Länder zu beherrschen, also solcher in kontinentaler Randlage und langfristig auch den amerikanischen Kontinent, Japan und Australien. Für Mackinder ist damit die Beherrschung des Kernlandes Eurasien der Schlüssel zur Weltmacht. In Deutschland fand seine Theorie so gut wie keine Rezeption und sein 1904 erschienenes Werk Democratic Ideals and Reality, in dem auch der für die Herzland-​Theorie grundlegende Aufsatz The Geographical Pivot of History erschien, hat bis heute keine deutsche Übersetzung erfahren.

In den USA beispielsweise war die Rezeption eine völlig andere. Dort werden Mackinders Ausführungen bis auf den heutigen Tag sehr ernst genommen. Mackinder selbst ging sogar so weit zu behaupten, dass nur durch den I. Weltkrieg verhindert werden konnte, dass Deutschland sich die Herrschaft über Herzland und Weltinsel sicherte. Dass die USA das um jeden Preis verhindern wollten, ist hinlänglich bekannt. Unter anderen stehen heute Zbigniew Brzezinski oder Henry Kissinger als prominente Vertreter der politischen Kreise, die das außenpolitische Handeln der USA im Wesentlichen an Mackinders Herzland-​Theorie ausrichten – theoretisch und auch in praktischer Hinsicht. Ein Blick auf die Weltkarte zeigt auch ohne umfassende geographische Kenntnisse, dass Russland heute immer noch einen wesentlichen Teil des Herzlandes abdeckt. Am Rande des Herzlandes befindet sich auch die Krim. Ihr geostrategischer Wert für Russland ist daher offensichtlich.

Böse geopolitische Realität

Während nun in Moskau und Washington bezüglich den aktuellen politischen Entwicklungen in der Ukraine Geopolitik betrieben wird, beschränken sich die EU-​Bürokraten auf die Ankündigung von Sanktionen. Unter anderem soll ein Drei-​Stufen-​Plan im Gespräch sein, den die EU durchführen möchte, sofern Russland seine Truppen nicht von der Krim abzieht. Auf eine solche Idee würden Staatsmänner nie kommen. Das ist Sache von Bürokraten, denen die Realität nur aus Erzählungen bekannt ist. Vielleicht sollten die Schreibtischtäter in Brüssel stattdessen mal über einen Drei-​Stufen-​Plan der EU nachdenken, sofern die USA ihre Truppen nicht aus Deutschland zurückziehen. Aber nein, das wäre dann doch wieder zu viel Geopolitik. Und die ist ja böse.

Bild 2: Mackinders Herzland (Pivot Area), Abbildung in seinem 1904 erschienenen Text The Geographical Pivot of History

Ukraine: Regime change à la USA

rioters-maidan-the-ukraine-19-01-14.jpg

Ukraine: Regime change à la USA

Aufflammen eines neuen kalten Krieges

von Thomas Kaiser

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch

Die erste Woche der Frühjahrssession des Menschenrechtsrats in Genf gehört den ­politischen Vertretern der einzelnen Länder. Häufig kommen die Aussenminister selbst oder deren Stellvertreter, um für zehn Minuten den Schwerpunkt ihrer Menschenrechtspolitik darzulegen. So auch in der letzten Woche, und es bot sich den Zuhörern ein interessantes Bild. Während die afrikanischen und asiatischen Staaten mehrheitlich die Menschenrechtslage in ihren jeweiligen Ländern zum Thema machten und wie sie diese verbessern könnten, waren es vor allem die EU- und Nato-Staaten, die die Situation in der Ukraine, in Syrien oder auch in Venezuela aufgriffen und auf äusserst ­polemische Weise kommentierten. Dabei wurden zum Teil scharfe Töne angeschlagen.


Sehr auffallend war am Dienstag die Rede des estnischen Aussenministers Urmas Paet, derjenige, der das inzwischen weithin bekannte Telefonat mit der EU-Aussenbeauftragten Catherine Ashton führte, in dem er erwähnte, dass die Scharfschützen in Kiew sowohl Polizisten als auch Demonstranten ins Visier genommen hatten (vgl. «Neue Zürcher Zeitung» vom 7. März). Ein ähnliches Vorgehen, das auch der französische Journalist und Publizist Tierry Meyssan aus Venezuela berichtete. Auch hier wurden sowohl Sicherheitskräfte als auch Demonstranten mit den gleichen Waffen getötet. Urmas Paet versuchte in seiner Rede, die Krise in der Ukraine als eine Gefahr für den Frieden in Europa heraufzubeschwören, und forderte die internationale Gemeinschaft zum Handeln auf. Es sollten «alle möglichen Massnahmen» gegen Russ­land ergriffen werden.

Nato-Osterweiterung gegen das Versprechen von George Bush sen.

Was mit der Nato-Ost-Erweiterung Mitte der 90er Jahre begann, nämlich gegen das Versprechen von George Bush sen. gegenüber Michail Gorbatschow, dass es keine Erweiterung der Nato auf die ehemaligen Sowjetrepubliken und Warschauer-Pakt-Staaten geben werde, sollte im ersten Jahrzehnt des 21. Jahrhunderts mit der Ausdehnung auf Georgien und die Ukraine weitergeführt werden. Die konsequente Einschnürung Russlands und damit eine starke Schwächung dieses aufstrebenden Landes, das sich in den letzten Jahren seit der Präsidentschaft Vladimir Putins verstärkt gegen die US-amerikanischen Hegemonialbestrebungen gestellt hat, besonders im Fall von Syrien, wird hiermit immer offensichtlicher.

Plötzlich aufflammende innere Konflikte

Es ist auffallend, dass verschiedene Länder, die sich bisher unabhängig vom US-Imperium auf ihre eigene Art entwickelten, mit plötzlich aufflammenden, inneren Konflikten zu kämpfen haben, sei es in Libyen, Syrien, Venezuela und nicht zuletzt in der Ukraine. Was Libyen anbetrifft, berichtete die «Neue Zürcher Zeitung» am 7. März, das Land drohe auseinanderzubrechen und im Chaos zu versinken. Ist das das Resultat einer «humanitären Intervention» für Freiheit, Demokratie und Menschenrechte, die von der Uno sanktioniert und durch die von ihr beauftragte Nato durchgeführt worden war? Damals hatten sich Russland und China der Zustimmung im UN-Sicherheitsrat enthalten. Was nach der Resolution folgte, hat ihre Haltung mehr als nur bestätigt. Es war ein notwendiges Signal an alle Staaten, dass nicht eine kleine Gruppe von Nationen nach ihrem Gutdünken einen Staat überfallen und dessen Regierung absetzen darf.

Ukraine aktuelles Opfer genau dieser amerikanischen Destruktionspolitik

Hört man sich auf den Gängen der Uno in Genf um, sind es vor allem die lateinamerikanischen Staaten, die ein Lied auf US-amerikanische Interventionen für Demokratie und Menschenrechte singen können, und eine klare Position zu den Vorgängen in Syrien, in Venezuela und in der Ukraine einnehmen. Hier besteht kaum Zweifel, dass die Ukraine aktuelles Opfer genau dieser amerikanischen Destruktionspolitik ist.

Doppelte Standards

Besonders zynisch war die Rede der US-Amerikanerin vor dem Menschenrechtsrat. Sie beschwor die edlen Bestrebungen der USA, sich für Freiheit, Demokratie und Menschenrechte einzusetzen, und kritisierte das Eingreifen Russlands in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Ukraine. «Wir haben darauf zu bestehen, dass alle Staaten die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine zu respektieren haben», und sie betont, dass das ukrainische Volk das Recht habe, «seinen eigenen politischen Weg zu bestimmen». Kennen wir nicht diese Worte? Wie sagte 1965 Präsident Johnson als Rechtfertigung für die militärische Intervention der USA in Vietnam, die in einem völligen Desaster endete: «Vietnam muss die Gelegenheit bekommen, seinen eigenen Weg beschreiten zu dürfen.» Wie sah dieser «eigene» Weg aus? Ein völlig zerstörtes und ein mit Agent Orange verseuchtes Land mit über 2 Millionen Toten. Das ist die Realität, wie es in der Ukraine weitergehen wird, wird sich zeigen.

USA haben am Staatstreich in diesem Land von Anfang an mitgearbeitet

Gerade in den letzten Wochen und spätestens seit dem Telefonat, als die Beauftragte für Osteuropa des US-Aussenministeriums Victoria Nuland im Gespräch mit dem US-amerikanischen Botschafter in der Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, ihren Unmut über die mangelnde Entschlossenheit der EU beim Sturz des ukrainischen Präsidenten Janukowitsch zum Ausdruck brachte und unter anderem den viel zitierten Satz «Fuck the EU» äu­s­serte, ist bekannt, wer sich hoch offiziell in die inneren Angelegenheiten eines anderen Staates einmischt. Während sich die Medien vor allem über die verbale Entgleisung empörten, gab es keinen Aufschrei über den Inhalt des Telefonats, in dem für die gesamte Weltöffentlichkeit deutlich wurde, dass die USA am Staatsstreich in diesem Land von Anfang an mitgearbeitet haben.

Bei Syrien hat US-Strategie nicht erfolgreich funktioniert

Was unter George W. Bush mit brutaler militärischer Intervention erreicht wurde, nämlich ein sogenannter Regime change von aussen, wird unter Obama mit Smartpower betrieben und verfolgt das gleiche Ziel: Sturz von Regierungen, ob demokratisch gewählt wie im Falle Janukowitsch oder nicht. Es spielt für die US-Politik keine Rolle, wenn es um die eigenen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen geht. Wenn der Wechsel nicht durch einen Bürgerkrieg erlangt werden kann, dann durch eine militärische Intervention, am besten natürlich mit einem erschlichenen Uno-Mandat wie im Fall Libyens.
Russland und China haben dort ihre Lektion endgültig gelernt. Bei Syrien hat die US-Strategie schon nicht mehr erfolgreich funktioniert, abgesehen von der Zerstörung des Landes und dem Töten vieler Unschuldiger. China und Russland haben damals im Uno-Sicherheitsrat das Veto eingelegt. Welches Schicksal die USA der Ukraine jetzt noch bereiten wollen, wird sich weisen. Sicher ist, Russland soll weiter in die Enge getrieben werden. Wenn man unsere Medien liest, kann man dem Irrtum aufsitzen, alle seien sich einig, dass Russland der «Bösewicht» sei, wenn man jedoch die Stimmen anderer Länder hört und liest, die bei uns verschwiegen werden, bekommt man ein ganz anderes Bild. Die US-EU-zentrische Sicht der Dinge ist naiv und einfältig. Es wird Zeit, dass wir unseren Horizont wirklich erweitern.     •

«… gegen jedes Ausnützen humanitärer Krisen …»

Auszug aus der Rede von Marcos Timermann, Aussenminister von Argentinien

«Herr Präsident, die Welt leidet noch immer unter dauernden und wiederholten Beispielen brutaler Unterdrückung grundlegender Menschenrechte. Der Schrecken, der über die Leben derjenigen gekommen ist, die in Ländern leben, die Opfer interner bewaffneter Konflikte sind, beschämt uns alle, und aus diesem Grund verurteilt mein Land aktiv, an Splittergruppen Waffen zu verkaufen, um diese Länder auseinanderzureissen, Waffen, die sehr oft von genau denjenigen Ländern kommen, die den Horror verurteilen, während sie vom Tod profitieren.
Auf diese Art und Weise möchte ich die Einstellung meines Landes zum Ausdruck bringen gegen jedes Ausnützen humanitärer Krisen, um eine ausländische militärische Intervention zu rechtfertigen, die nicht mehr ist als geopolitische Manöver in einem Spiel, in dem die Interessen der Opfer nicht zu den Prioritäten gehören.»

Quelle: www.un.org
(Übersetzung Zeit-Fragen)

«Die Intervention der westlichen Mächte muss aufhören …»

Vize-Aussenminister Abelardo Moreno Fernández zitiert am 6. März im Uno-Menschenrechtsrat in Genf Kubas Staatspräsident Raúl Castro

«Wo immer es eine Regierung gibt, die den Interessen der Machtzirkel in den USA und einigen ihrer europäischen Aliierten nicht entspricht, wird sie zum Ziel subversiver Kampagnen. Jetzt werden neue Zermürbungsmethoden angewendet, subtiler und verschleierter, ohne allerdings auf Gewalt zu verzichten, um den Frieden und die innere Ordnung zu zerrütten und zu verhindern, dass die Regierungen sich auf die ökonomische und soziale Entwicklung konzentrieren können, falls es ihnen nicht gelingt, sie niederzuringen.»
«Es lassen sich nicht wenige Analogien in den Manualen für nicht-konventionelle Kriegsführung finden, wie sie in verschiedenen Ländern unserer Region Lateinamerika und Karibik zur Anwendung kommen, so wie es heute in Venezuela geschieht und sich nach ähnlichem Muster auf anderen Kontinenten abgespielt hat, vor einiger Zeit in Libyen und gegenwärtig in Syrien und in der Ukraine. Wer daran zweifelt, den lade ich ein, das Trainings-Zirkular 1801 der US-amerikanischen Spezialeinsatzkräfte durchzublättern, veröffentlicht im November 2010 unter dem Titel ‹Der unkonventionelle Krieg›.»
«Die Intervention der westlichen Mächte muss aufhören, damit das ukrainische Volk auf legitime Art sein Recht auf Selbstbestimmung ausüben kann. Man sollte nicht vergessen, dass diese Vorgänge sehr schwerwiegende Konsequenzen für den Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit haben können.»

Quelle: www.un.org 
(Übersetzung Zeit-Fragen)

mardi, 18 mars 2014

L’Union Européenne et l’Ukraine : une diplomatie à la BHL!

cri.jpg

L’Union Européenne et l’Ukraine : une diplomatie à la BHL!

Frédéric Dalmas

Ex: http://www.voxnr.com

r

 

Dans la crise ukrainienne, il est désolant de constater l’inefficacité crasse de la diplomatie de l’Union européenne, qui préfère mettre la pression sur la Russie plutôt que d’apaiser les tensions. Tout ça parce que l’UE, à l’instar des États-Unis, a développé une vision manichéenne des relations internationales : en Ukraine, ce sont les « gentils » Ukrainiens défenseurs de la démocratie contre les « méchants » Russes qui veulent récupérer la Crimée. Cette diplomatie qui caricature la réalité est une diplomatie à la BHL (1)!

Samedi 1er Mars 2014 : la Chambre haute du parlement russe, le Conseil de la Fédération, à la demande du Président Vladimir Poutine, vote à une très large majorité la décision de recourir aux "forces armées de la Fédération de Russie sur le territoire de l'Ukraine jusqu'à la normalisation de la situation sociopolitique dans ce pays".

Face à cette situation, que font les occidentaux ? Plutôt que de se mettre autour d’une table avec la Russie, ils la menacent de sanctions ! Nous allons suspendre le G8 de Sotchi ! Nous allons limiter les importations de gaz russe ! Nous allons bloquer les avoirs des oligarques ! Le 11 mars sur France Inter, Laurent Fabius déclarait que « les Russes n’ont pas encore répondu à notre proposition de désescalade ». Mais quelle proposition ? Les décisions prises par les occidentaux, en mettant la pression sur la Russie, ne sont pas des propositions de désescalade, plutôt que d’apaiser les tensions, elles contribuent à les favoriser !

Et maintenant, dans la perspective du référendum de dimanche sur le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie, tous crient que ce référendum est illégal ! Que la Russie ne peut pas bafouer la « légalité internationale » en menaçant l’intégrité du territoire ukrainien ! Oui, tout cela est vrai, mais à quoi ces cris d’orfraie vont-ils servir ? En quoi cela va-t-il changer quelque chose à la situation ? Que peuvent les Nations Unies, quand la Russie fait partie du Conseil de Sécurité ?

Non, tout cela est totalement inefficace et nous mène droit à la guerre ! La méthode la plus efficace serait la négociation gagnant-gagnant : dans le business comme en diplomatie, l’objectif de cette méthode est que toutes les parties aient l’impression d’avoir gagné quelque chose. Pour cela, il convient d’étudier à tête reposée les intérêts de chacun, et les « lignes rouges » à ne pas franchir. Or, cela n’a pas été fait dans la crise ukrainienne. Pour revenir à des bases de négociation saines, il faudrait accorder deux choses à la Russie : le retour en arrière du Parlement ukrainien de transition sur sa décision de supprimer l’enseignement obligatoire du russe, et un moratoire sur l’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’OTAN. Voici les deux « lignes rouges » pour la Russie.

Il y a 3 éléments essentiels constitutifs d’une nation : des frontières communes bien sûr, mais aussi une culture commune, et une langue commune (ou plusieurs langues reconnues à égalité sur l’ensemble du territoire). Les occidentaux accusent les Russes de vouloir remettre en cause les frontières de la nation ukrainienne, mais le Parlement ukrainien de transition, lui, s’en est pris à la langue ! En remettant en cause l’enseignement obligatoire du russe, il a remis en cause la langue russe elle-même comme langue officielle, à parité avec l’ukrainien. Inacceptable pour les ukrainiens russophones qui se sentent ainsi exclus de la nation ukrainienne, et donc pour la Russie qui est naturellement solidaire de cette population qui partage avec elle une langue, une histoire et donc une culture commune. Imaginons qu’un jour les Flamands se révoltent et prennent le pouvoir au Parlement belge. Que dirait la France si le Parlement belge remettait en cause l’enseignement obligatoire du français pour les Wallons ?

La perspective de voir renaître les velléités d’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’OTAN est également inacceptable pour la Russie, qui se retrouverait ainsi complètement entourée par une coalition militaire largement au service des intérêts US, jusqu’au cœur-même de sa sphère d’influence naturelle. A mon sens, l’occupation de la Crimée par l’armée russe est une réaction de la Russie pour signifier tout simplement qu’elle ne se laissera pas faire. Comment en effet envisager que la Crimée, où la Russie possède une base navale d’intérêt stratégique crucial, se retrouve un jour dans l’OTAN !

Certes, Vladimir Poutine est un président autoritaire, qui utilise des méthodes dignes du KGB (à ce propos, voir le livre d’Alexandre Litvinenko, Le Temps des Assassins (2), mais il faut tenir compte des réalités géostratégiques. Et plutôt que de se positionner par rapport à la réalité, les occidentaux campent sur des positions de morale ! Des positions binaires, manichéennes, réductrices, alors que la réalité est plus complexe… Soulignons au passage que parmi les « défenseurs de la Russie », certains tiennent également des positions binaires : la crise ukrainienne, si on les écoute, serait une lutte entre les « gentils » Russes et les « méchants Ukrainiens fascistes », ce qui est tout aussi ridicule ! Bien sûr, il y a avait des fascistes dans le mouvement de révolte, mais les fascistes étaient une minorité, une minorité bien visible certes, mais une minorité quand même. Le mouvement de la place Maïdan était hétéroclite, comme le soulignait la rédaction du Monde diplomatique dans l’émission Là-bas si j’y suis du 6 Mars 2014 (3). Il n’y a pas eu de Coup d’État en Ukraine, juste une révolution comme toutes les autres, qui ne peut pas aboutir du jour au lendemain au régime idéal.

Mais revenons à des considérations diplomatiques. Dans la situation actuelle, nous voyons les États-Unis « négocier » avec la Russie, alors que les 2 parties ont des intérêts totalement contradictoires : les États-Unis veulent étendre leur sphère d’influence à l’Ukraine par l’intermédiaire de l’OTAN et la Russie ne le veut pas. On ne doit pas s’étonner, dans ces conditions, que ces « négociations » s’apparentent à un dialogue de sourds. L’Allemagne ou la France auraient pu se positionner comme arbitre, pour favoriser la recherche d’un compromis acceptable, mais non, comme pendant la Guerre froide, l’UE se soumet à la diplomatie US, alors que s’il y a une guerre en Ukraine, c’est l’UE qui sera en première ligne et subira les dégâts. Les États-Unis, géographiquement isolés, ne craignent rien. Rappelons que pendant la Guerre froide, l’OTAN était un système permettant aux États-Unis de créer un tampon avec l’URSS : en installant des missiles en Europe, les États-Unis avaient l’assurance qu’en cas de déflagration nucléaire, ce sont leurs alliés européens qui prendraient en premier ! Aujourd’hui, on dirait que rien n’a changé !

Et après le « référendum » de dimanche en Crimée, c’est la guerre qui se profile ! Si la Crimée se détache de l’Ukraine, qui empêchera les autres russophones ukrainiens de demander la même chose ? Le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie, ou la reconnaissance de son indépendance, risque d’avoir les mêmes effets qu’en ex-Yougoslavie, où la reconnaissance de l’indépendance de la Croatie par l’Allemagne en 1992 a déclenché la guerre. Alors que la crise ukrainienne aurait pu être l’occasion de rapprocher diplomatiquement l’UE et la Russie, toute cette histoire vire au gâchis ! Pour moi, la meilleure option pour l’Ukraine serait d’en faire une confédération à la suisse, un état tampon neutre, comme un pont entre l’UE et la Russie. Car c’est la neutralité de la Suisse qui a garanti sa stabilité pendant les deux guerres mondiales. Si la Suisse n’avait pas été neutre, imaginez ce que cela aurait donné entre les parties francophone, germanophone et italophone !

Si la guerre éclate la semaine prochaine, nous constaterons une fois de plus qu’on ne fait pas de diplomatie avec de la morale, mais avec des principes. Le premier d’entre eux étant le principe de réalité !

 

notes

1 Et oui, je veux bien sûr parler de Bernard-Henry Lévy, le grand « philosophe » germanopratin qui a courageusement lutté les armes à la main contre l’infâme Kadhafi en Lybie, et le cruel Milosevic en Yougoslavie.

2 Alexandre Litvinenko. Le Temps des Assassins, Éditions Calmann-Lévy.

3 http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/carnet/2014-03-06-La-bas

lundi, 17 mars 2014

Iraq Blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia for Terrorism

irak-al-qaida-m_0.jpg

Iraq Blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia for Terrorism: Re-run of Afghanistan and Pakistan

Salma Sribi and Michiyo Tanabe

Modern Tokyo Times

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki of Iraq denounces Qatar and Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism and sectarianism against Iraq. Maliki made it abundantly clear that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are involved in the destabilization of Iraq based on Gulf petrodollars, their geopolitical ambitions, sectarian factors and other negative realities. Of course, this highlights the sham of Saudi Arabia that often claims it is fighting terrorism but in reality this nation turns this clock on and off when it suits the elites in Riyadh.

Indeed, the only real fear for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states is to keep internal terrorism at bay. Therefore, exporting terrorism and spreading sectarianism is the mantra. Of course, major Western powers also conveniently use terrorism and sectarianism when the time suits. This reality applies to fighting on the same side in Afghanistan (1980s/1990s); Bosnia; Libya and currently in Syria. However, it is Gulf petrodollars, Salafi ideology, exporting militancy and funding sectarian ventures based on the intrigues of feudal kingdoms, where all the barbaric synergy comes together.

Maliki spoke frankly to France 24 about Qatar and Saudi Arabia supporting the brutal terrorist and sectarian insurgency in Iraq. Maliki says: I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them…I accuse them of leading an open war against the Iraqi government.”

Lee Jay Walker at Modern Tokyo Times says: “This reality is like a re-run because in Afghanistan it is clear that Pakistan is involved in many murky terrorist and sectarian dealings against this nation. In other words, the allies of America and the United Kingdom are the same nations assisting terrorism against governments and nations they are meant to be supporting. Of course, this equally entails that many British and American soldiers have been killed and maimed because of the collective intrigues of so called allies. Despite this, what is the comeback against Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?”

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is saying the same with regards to Pakistan destabilizing his country. The New York Times reports “Mr. Karzai charged that elements of the Pakistani government were still supporting Islamic militants, as they had in the past, and that if such sources of terrorism were not defeated, Afghans and international soldiers would continue to die.”

The above was stated in 2006 yet in 2011 Karzai made it clear that nothing had changed. In the Washington Post they quote Karzai saying: “Pakistan has pursued a double game toward Afghanistan, and using terrorism as a means continues.” Of course, in 2014 this same opinion is held by many in Afghanistan but at no time is Pakistan worried about becoming a pariah – just like Qatar and Saudi Arabia don’t have to worry. Therefore, what is going on in the corridors of power in Washington and London?

While Maliki was accusing Qatar and Saudi Arabia yet another barbaric terrorist attack killed over 30 Iraqi nationals. The latest terrorist attack took place at a checkpoint in Hilla. Like usual, Sunni Islamic jihadists attacked Hilla because this area is predominantly Shia and Takfiri hatred towards this community knows no boundaries.

France 24 reports: Maliki went on to say that not only did Saudi Arabia support terrorism in countries such as Iraq and Syria, but around the world.”

Lee Jay Walker says: “Afghanistan and Iraq are paying a heavy price because of the respective intrigues of Qatar, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. India knows full well that being the largest democracy in the world doesn’t appear to resonate in London and Washington. After all, for decades Pakistan is exporting terrorism to Kashmir and many brutal terrorist attacks in India can be traced back to Pakistan. Yet, despite this reality, and the obvious connection linking Pakistan with many terrorist and sectarian factions in Afghanistan, this still doesn’t prevent America and the United Kingdom from supporting Pakistan in the field of economic and military support. Indeed, it appears that just like American and British soldiers are expendable to political elites in Washington and London; the same can clearly be said about Pakistan soldiers being killed based on the intrigues of Pakistan.”

In 2013 just below 9,000 people were killed in Iraq because of sectarian and terrorist forces. This figure is the highest since 2007 and says much about the bankruptcy of President Obama in America. Indeed, France 24 should be asking why France is involving itself along with Turkey against the government of Syria. After all, like Maliki says about Qatar and Saudi Arabia: “They are attacking Iraq through Syria, and in a direct way.”

Until Gulf and Western powers are held accountable then sadly the destabilization of nations will continue whereby terrorism is a useful tool. Obviously, this reality is being ignored by the United Nations therefore the same methodology will continue to be utilized by the same Gulf and Western powers – along with Turkey and Pakistan that continue to switch the terrorist clock on.

Lee Jay Walker gave guidance to both writers

http://www.france24.com/en/20140308-france24-exclusive-interview-iraq-maliki/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26501610

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/asia/13afghan.html?_r=0

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

dimanche, 16 mars 2014

The War on Russia in its Ideological Dimension

war406301.jpg

The War on Russia in its Ideological Dimension

 
Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru
 
The coming war as concept
 
The war against Russia is currently the most discussed issue in the West. At this point it is only a suggestion and a possibility, but it can become a reality depending on the decisions taken by all parties involved in the Ukrainian conflict – Moscow, Washington, Kiev, and Brussels.
 
I don’t want to discuss all the aspects and history of this conflict here. Instead I propose to analyze its deep ideological roots. My conception of the most relevant events is based on the Fourth Political Theory, whose principles I have described in my book under the same name that was published in English by Arktos Media in 2012.
 
Therefore I will not examine the war of the West on Russia in terms of its risks, dangers, issues, costs or consequences, but rather in an ideological sense as seen from the global perspective. I will therefore meditate on the sense of such a war, and not on the war itself (which may be either real or virtual).
 
Essence of liberalism
 
In the modern West, there is one ruling, dominant ideology – liberalism. It may appear in many shades, versions and forms, but the essence is always the same. Liberalism contains an inner, fundamental structure which follows axiomatic principles:
 
-   anthropological individualism (the individual is the measure of all things);
 
-  belief in progress (the world is heading toward a better future, and the past is always worse than the present);
 
-   technocracy (technical development and its execution are taken as the most important criteria by which to judge the nature of a society);
 
-   eurocentrism (Euro-American societies are accepted as the standard of measure for the rest of humanity);
 
-   economy as destiny (the free market economy is the only normative economic system – all the rest types are to either be reformed or destroyed);
 
-   democracy is the rule of minorities (defending themselves from the majority, which is always prone to degenerate into totalitarianism or “populism”);
 
-  the middle class is the only really existing social actor and universal norm (independent from the fact of whether or not an individual has already reached this status or is on the way to becoming actually middle class, representing for the moment only a would-be middle class);
 
-   one-world globalism (human beings are all essentially the same with only one distinction, namely that of their individual nature – the world should be integrated on the basis of the individual and cosmopolitism; in other words, world citizenship).
 
These are the core values of liberalism, and they are a manifestation of one of the three tendencies that originated in the Enlightenment alongside communism and fascism, which collectively proposed varying interpretations of the spirit of modernity. During the twentieth century, liberalism defeated its rivals, and since 1991 has become the sole, dominant ideology of the world.
 
The only freedom of choice in the kingdom of global liberalism is that between Right liberalism, Left liberalism or radical liberalism, including far-Right liberalism, far-Left liberalism and extremely radical liberalism. As a consequence, liberalism has been installed as the operational system of Western civilization and of all other societies that find themselves in the zone of Western influence. It has become the common denominator for any politically correct discourse, and the distinguishing mark which determines who is accepted by mainstream politics and who is marginalized and rejected. Conventional wisdom itself became liberal.
 
Geopolitically, liberalism was inscribed in the America-centered model in which Anglo-Saxons formed the ethnical core, based upon the Atlanticist Euro-American partnership, NATO, which represents the strategic core of the system of global security. Global security has come to be seen as being synonymous with the security of the West, and in the last instance with American security. So liberalism is not only an ideological power but also a political, military and strategic power. NATO is liberal in its roots. It defends liberal societies, and it fights to extend liberalism to new areas.
 
Liberalism as nihilism
 
There is one point in liberal ideology that has brought about a crisis within it: liberalism is profoundly nihilistic at its core. The set of values defended by liberalism is essentially linked to its main thesis: the primacy of liberty. But liberty in the liberal vision is an essentially negative category: it claims to be free from (as per John Stuart Mill), not to be free for something. It is not secondary; it is the essence of the problem.
 
Liberalism fights against all forms of collective identity, and against all types of values, projects, strategies, goals, methods and so on that are collectivist, or at least non-individualist. That is the reason why one of the most important theorists of liberalism, Karl Popper (following Friedrich von Hayek), held in his important book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, that liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests that human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning. (It should be noted that George Soros regards this book as his personal bible.) Any goal, any value, and any meaning in liberal society, or the open society, should be strictly based upon the individual. So the enemies of the open society, which is synonymous with Western society post-1991, and which has become the norm for the rest of the world, are concrete. Its primary enemies are communism and fascism, both ideologies which emerged from the same Enlightenment philosophy, and which contained central, non-individualic concepts – class in Marxism, race in National Socialism, and the national State in fascism. So the source of liberalism’s conflict with the existing alternatives of modernity, fascism or communism, is quite obvious. Liberals claim to liberate society from fascism and communism, or from the two major permutations of explicitly non-individualistic modern totalitarianism. Liberalism’s struggle, when viewed as a part of the process of the liquidation of non-liberal societies, is quite meaningful: it acquires its meaning from the fact of the very existence of ideologies that explicitly deny the individual as society’s highest value. It is quite clear what the struggle opposes: liberation from its opposite. But the fact that liberty, as it is conceived by liberals, is an essentially negative category is not clearly perceived here. The enemy is present and is concrete. That very fact gives liberalism its solid content. Something other than the open society exists, and the fact of its existence is enough to justify the process of liberation.
 
Unipolar period: threat of implosion
 
In 1991, when the Soviet Union as the last opponent of Western liberalism fell, some Westerners, such as Francis Fukuyama, proclaimed the end of history. This was quite logical: as there was no longer an explicit enemy of the open society, therefore there was no more history as had occurred during the modern period, which was defined by the struggle between three political ideologies (liberalism, communism and fascism) for the heritage of the Enlightenment. That was, strategically speaking, the moment when “unipolar moment” was realized (Charles Krauthammer). The period between 1991 and 2014, at the midpoint of which Bin Laden’s attack against the World Trade Center occurred, was the period of the global domination of liberalism. The axioms of liberalism were accepted by all the main geopolitical actors, including China (in economic terms) and Russia (in its ideology, economy, and political system). There were liberals and would-be liberals, not-yet liberals, not-liberal-enough liberals and so on. The real and explicit exceptions were few (such as Iran and North Korea). So the world became axiomatically liberal according to its ideology.
 
This has been the most important moment in the history of liberalism. It has defeated its enemies, but at the same time it has lost them. Liberalism is essentially the liberation from and the fight against all that is not liberal (at present or in what has the potential to become such). Liberalism acquired its real meaning and its content from its enemies. When the choice is presented as being between not-freedom (as represented by concrete totalitarian societies) or freedom, many choose freedom, not understanding it in terms of freedom for what, or freedom to do what… When there is an illiberal society, liberalism is positive. It only begins to show its negative essence after victory.
 
After the victory of 1991, liberalism stepped into its implosive phase. After having defeated communism as well as fascism, it stood alone, with no enemy to fight. And that was the moment when inner conflicts emerged, when liberal societies began to attempt to purge themselves of their last remaining non-liberal elements: sexism, politically incorrectness, inequality between the sexes, any remnants of the non-individualistic dimensions of institutions such as the State and the Church, and so on. Liberalism always needs enemy to liberate from. Otherwise it loses its purpose, and its implicit nihilism becomes too salient. The absolute triumph of liberalism is its death.
 
That is the ideological meaning of the financial crises of 2000 and of 2008. The successes and not the failures of the new, entirely profit-based economy (of turbocapitalism, according to Edward Luttwak) are responsible for its collapse.
 
The liberty to do anything you want, but restricted to the individual scale, provokes an implosion of the personality. The human passes to the infra-human realm, and to sub-individual domains. And here he encounters virtuality, as a dream of sub-individuality, the freedom from anything. This is the evaporation of the human, and brings about the Empire of nothingness as the last word in the total victory of liberalism. Postmodernism prepares the terrain for that post-historic, self-referential recycling of non-sense.
 
The West is in need of an enemy
 
You may ask now, what the Hell does all of this have to do with the (presumable) coming war with Russia? I am ready to answer that now.
 
Liberalism has continued to gain momentum on a global scale. Since 1991, it has been an inescapable fact. And it has now begun to implode. It has arrived at its terminal point and started to liquidate itself. Mass immigration, the clash of cultures and civilizations, the financial crisis, terrorism, and the growth of ethnic nationalism are indicators of approaching chaos. This chaos endangers the established order: any kind of order, including the liberal order itself. The more liberalism succeeds, the faster it approaches its end and the end of the present world. Here we are dealing with the nihilistic essence of liberal philosophy, with nothingness as the inner (me)ontological principle of freedom-from. The German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen justly defined the human as a “deprived being,” or Mangelwesen. Man in himself is nothing. It takes all that comprises its identity from society, history, people, and politics. So if he returns to his pure essence, he can no longer recognize anything. The abyss is hidden behind the fragmented debris of feelings, vague thoughts, and dim desires. The virtuality of sub-human emotions is a thin veil; behind it there is pure darkness. So the explicit discovery of this nihilistic basis of human nature is the last achievement of liberalism. But that is the end, and the end also for those who use the liberalism for their own purposes and who are beneficiaries of liberal expansion; in other words, the masters of globalization. Any and all order collapses in such an emergency of nihilism: the liberal order, too.
 
In order to rescue the rule of this liberal elite, they need to take a certain step back. Liberalism will reacquire its meaning only when it is confronted once more with non-liberal society. This step back is the only way to save what remains of order, and to save liberalism from itself. Therefore, Putin’s Russia appears on its horizon. Modern Russia is not anti-liberal, not totalitarian, not nationalist, and not communist, nor is it yet too liberal, fully liberal-democrat, sufficiently cosmopolite, or so radically anti-communist. It is rather on the way to becoming liberal, step by step, within the process of a Gramscian adjustment to global hegemony and the subsequent transformation this entails (“transformismo” in Gramscian language).
 
However, in the global agenda of liberalism as represented by the United States and NATO, there is a need for another actor, for another Russia that would justify the order of the liberal camp, and help to mobilize the West as it threatens to break apart from inner strife. This will delay the irruption of liberalism’s inner nihilism and thus save it from its inevitable end. That is why they badly need Putin, Russia, and war. It is the only way to prevent chaos in the West and to save what remains of its global and domestic order. In this ideological play, Russia would justify liberalism’s existence, because that is the enemy which would give a meaning to the struggle of the open society, and which would help it to consolidate and continue to affirm itself globally. Radical Islam, such as represented by al-Qaeda, was another candidate for this role, but it lacked sufficient stature to become a real enemy. It was used, but only on a local scale. It justified the intervention in Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, the overthrow of Gaddafi, and started a civil war in Syria, but it was too weak and ideologically primitive to represent the real challenge that is needed by liberals.
 
Russia, the traditional geopolitical enemy of Anglo-Saxons, is much more serious as an opponent. It fits the needed role extremely well – the memory of the Cold War is still fresh in many minds. Hate for Russia is an easy thing to provoke by relatively simple means. This is why I think that war with Russia is possible. It is ideologically necessary as the last means to postpone the final implosion of the liberal West. It is the needed “one step back.”
 
To save the liberal order
 
Considering the different layers of this concept of a possible war with Russia, I suggest a few points:
 
1. A war with Russia will help to delay the coming disorder on a global scale. The majority of the countries that are involved in the liberal economy, and which share the axioms and institutions of liberal democracy, and which are either dependent upon or directly controlled by the United States and NATO, will forge a common front once more behind the cause of the liberal West in its quest to oppose the anti-liberal Putin. This will serve to reaffirm liberalism as a positive identity when this identity is beginning to dissolving as a result of the manifestation of its nihilistic essence.
 
2. A war with Russia would strengthen NATO and above all its European members, who will be obliged once more to regard American hyperpower as something positive and useful, and the old Cold War stance will no longer seem obsolete. Out of a fear of the coming of the “evil Russians”, Europeans will again feel loyal to the United States as their protector and savior. As a result, the leading role of the U.S. in NATO will be reaffirmed.
 
3. The EU is falling apart. The supposed “common threat” of the Russians could prevent it from an eventual split, mobilizing these societies and making their peoples once again eager to defend their liberties and values under the threat of Putin’s “imperial ambitions”.
 
4. The Ukraine junta in Kiev needs this war to justify and conceal all the misdeeds they carried out during the Maidan protests on both the juridical and constitutional levels, thus allowing them to suspend democracy, that would impede their rule in the southeastern, mostly pro-Russian districts and would enable them to establish their authority and nationalistic order through extra-parliamentary means.
 
The only country that doesn’t want war now is Russia. But Putin cannot let the radically anti-Russian government in Ukraine to dominate a country that has a population that is half-Russian and which contains many pro-Russian regions. If he allows this, he will be finished on the international and domestic levels. So, reluctantly, he accepts war. And once he begins on this course, there will be no other solution for Russia but to win it.
 
I don’t like to speculate regarding the strategic aspects of this coming war. I leave that to other, more qualified analysts. Instead I would like to formulate some ideas concerning the ideological dimension of this war.
 
Framing Putin
 
The meaning of this war on Russia is in essence the last effort of globalist liberalism to save itself from implosion. As such, liberals need to define Putin’s Russia ideologically – and obviously identify it with the enemy of the open society. But in the dictionary of modern ideologies there are only three primary iterations: liberalism, communism and fascism. It is quite clear that liberalism is represented by all the nations involved in this conflict except for Russia (the United States, the NATO member states, and Euromaidan/the Kiev junta). This leaves only communism and fascism. Therefore Putin is made out to be a “neo-Soviet revanchist” and “a return of the KGB”. This is the picture that is being sold to the most stupid sort of Western public. But some aspects of the patriotic reaction emanating from the pro-Russian and anti-Banderite population (i.e., the defense of Lenin’s monuments, Stalin portraits and memorials to the Soviet involvement in the Second World War) could confirm this idea in the minds of this public. Nazism and fascism are too far removed from Putin and the reality of modern Russia, but Russian nationalism and Russian imperialism will be evoked within the image of the Great Evil that is being drawn. Therefore Putin is being made out to be a “radical nationalist”, a “fascist” and an “imperialist”. This will work on many Westerners. Under this logic, Putin can be both “communist” and “fascist” at the same time, so he will be depicted as a “National Bolshevik” (although this is a little bit too complicated for the postmodern Western public). It is obvious that in reality, Putin is neither – he is not a communist nor a fascist, nor both simultaneously. He is a political pragmatist in the realm of International Relations – this is why he admires Kissinger, and why Kissinger likes him in return. He has no ideology whatsoever. But he will be obliged to embrace the ideological frame that he has been assigned. It is not his choice. But such are the rules of the game. In the course of this war on Russia, Putin will be framed in this way, and that is the most interesting and important aspect of this situation.
 
The main idea that liberals will try to advance to define Putin ideologically will be as the shadow of the past, as a vampire: “Sometimes they come back.” That is the rationale behind this attempt to prevent the final implosion of liberalism. The primary message is that liberalism is still alive and vital because there is something in the world that we all must be liberated from. Russia will become the object from which it must be liberated. The goal is first to liberate Ukraine, and by extension Europe and the rest of humanity, who will likewise be depicted as being under threat, from Russia, and in the end Russia itself will be said to be in need of rescue from its own non-liberal identity. So now we have an enemy. Such an enemy gives to the liberalism its raison d’etre once more. So Russia is being made out to be a challenger from the pre-liberal past thrown into the liberal present. Without such a challenge there is no more life in liberalism, no more order in the world, and everything associated with them will dissolve and implode. With this challenge, the falling giant of globalism acquires new vigor. Russia is here to save the liberals.
 
But in order for this to happen, Russia is being ideologically framed as something pre-liberal. She must be either communist, fascist or at perhaps National Bolshevist Russia. That is the ideological rule. Therefore, in fighting with Russia, or in considering to fight her, or in not fighting her, there is a deeper task – to frame Russia ideologically. It will be done from both the inside and the outside. They will try to force Russia to accept either communism or extreme nationalism, or else they will simply treat Russia as if it were these things. It is a framing game.
 
Post-liberal Russia: The first war of the Fourth Political Theory
 
In conclusion, what I propose is the following:
 
We need to consciously counter any provocation to frame Russia as a pre-liberal power. We need to refuse to allow the liberals to save themselves from their fast-approaching end. Rather than helping them to delay it, we need to accelerate it. In order to do this, we need to present Russia not as a pre-liberal entity but as a post-liberal revolutionary force that struggles for an alternative future for all the peoples of the planet. The Russian war will be not only be for Russian national interests, but will be in the cause of a just multipolar world, for real dignity and for real, positive freedom – not (nihilistic) freedom from but (creative) freedom for. In this war, Russia will set an example as the defender of Tradition, conservative organic values, and will represent real liberation from the open society and its beneficiaries – the global financial oligarchy. This war is not against Ukrainians or even against part of the Ukrainian populace. Nor is it against Europe. It is against the liberal world (dis)order. We are not going to save liberalism, per their designs. We are going to kill it once and for all. Modernity was always essentially wrong, and we are now at the terminal point of modernity. For those who rendered modernity and their own destiny synonymous, or who let that occur unconsciously, this will mean the end. But for those who are on the side of eternal truth and of Tradition, of faith, and of the spiritual and immortal human essence, it will be a new beginning, Absolute Beginning.
 
The most important fight at present is the fight for the Fourth Political Theory. It is our weapon, and with it we are going to prevent the liberals from realizing their wish of framing Putin and Russia  in their own manner, and in so doing we will reaffirm Russia as the first post-liberal ideological power struggling against nihilistic liberalism for the sake of an open, multipolar and genuinely free future.
 

US Pushes Georgia into NATO

gruzja-nato.jpg

US Pushes Georgia into NATO: MAP is Option Again

Andrei AKULOV 

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

 
As Russian Kommersant daily reports citing its own NATO and US State Department sources, the idea of granting Georgia a Membership Action Plan (MAP) is getting wide support in the Alliance, as the events in Ukraine unfold. On his recent visit to Washington on February 25 Georgian Prime Minister Garibashvili got the assurances that his country will get a MAP at NATO September 2014 session in Cardiff, Wales, in case Crimea votes for joining the Russian Federation at the March 16 referendum. The article notes that only Germany may hesitate a bit while the foreign department is headed by Franc-Walter Steinmeier prone to show restraint towards Russia.

US administration takes stance to support Georgia’s NATO’s bid

The U.S. State Department endorsed granting Georgia its long-coveted status as an aspiring NATO member. This is the first time in recent history that the U.S. has explicitly come out in favor of MAP. Before the visit State Department officials had shied away from making the US stance definite. President Barak Obama and State Secretary John Kerry met the Georgian Prime Minister. After the meeting Kerry mentioned the possibility of his visit to Georgia for the first time (before May). The Secretary also announced «additional assistance» to Georgia: «Today I am announcing additional assistance by the United States to help support Georgia’s European and Euro-Atlantic vision, specifically to help Georgia achieve visa-free travel with the EU and to mitigate the hardships caused by borderization along the occupied territories»

Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania said Russia’s campaign in Ukraine creates a need for more decisive NATO policy in Eastern Europe. «Speeding up the process of Georgia joining NATO should be one of the essential elements of the new policy approach that will better contribute to ensuring [the] stability of the European and Euro-Atlantic area», Alasania wrote in an emailed response to questions posed by EurasiaNet.org. «Speeding up the process of Georgia joining NATO should be one of the essential elements of the new policy approach that will better contribute to ensuring [the] stability of the European and Euro-Atlantic area», he wrote in an emailed response to questions posed by EurasiaNet.org.

«There is now a wave of support building here for the idea of giving Georgia a MAP to protect against Russia», says Caucasus expert Thomas de Waal, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.

In late 2008 NATO embarked on an intensive cooperation program intended to strengthen the Georgian military. A NATO-Georgia Commission was established and tasked with overseeing implementation of successive Annual National Programs intended as a substitute for a MAP. At the NATO's Lisbon summit in 2010 participants reaffirmed the commitment enshrined in the Bucharest summit communique that Georgia would eventually join the alliance. Georgia has made an outsized contribution to the NATO effort in Afghanistan. 

In March 2013, the Georgian parliament passed a unanimous resolution reconfirming Georgia's NATO and EU aspirations. Last year NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for his part lauded Georgia's progress toward meeting NATO membership requirements. Visiting Tbilisi in June 2013, he said Georgia had «moved a lot closer to NATO» and «is on the right path» to «NATO's open door». «With consistent and determined efforts, you will reach your destination», Rasmussen assured the hosts.

Georgia is situated in the strategically vital Caucasus region, which links Europe and the West to resource-rich Central Asia and beyond to China and India. A growing network of sea ports, air and land corridors put Georgia at the emerging nexus for Asian and European economies. As NATO and the US scale down their presence in Afghanistan, the West is going to need strong partners in this region. When it comes to the EU, Brussels is working to accelerate the signing of accords that will eventually make the country’s laws, economy and political system EU-compatible. The agreements, expected later this year, are subject to legislative approval by both the EU and Georgia, and require more reforms. But for the first time Brussels has hinted that its overtures to Georgia will not stop there. 

Sergi Kapanadze, a deputy foreign minister under former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, believes that showing a strengthened commitment to Georgia on NATO membership would be one of the best ways to show Russia how resolute the West is to oppose it, «Based on other situations, such as Syria, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin now feels that the West is weak and its warnings taper off without translating into something that can actually hurt Russia», said Kapanadze. «If the West does not take real steps, such as expelling Russia from the G8 and making Georgia a NATO member, Putin will think he can get away with Ukraine».

US lawmakers strongly push for granting MAP 

While the events in Ukraine dominate headlines, congressmen in Washington are pressuring the administration to take a more aggressive stand toward allowing NATO membership for Georgia. 

In February 2014, 40 lawmakers from both sides of the aisle wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry stressing that the U.S. and its allies «have reached a critical point in which action is necessary to ensure NATO’s future relevance and viability». They encouraged continued efforts to make enlargement a key priority for the United States and urged him to support NATO membership for Macedonia and Montenegro, encourage continued progress in implementing the MAP for Bosnia-Herzegovina. 

The Feb. 5 letter, drafted by the office of Rep. Mike Turner Ohio Republican and chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, specifically called on the Secretary of State to advocate granting Georgia a MAP at NATO’s 2014 summit, which is slated for September.

In response to the letter, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State of Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield wrote, «We believe Georgia deserves credit at the upcoming NATO Summit for the progress it has made and its demonstrated commitment to NATO operations and standards. We stand ready to support Georgia's own efforts to build a consensus within the Alliance for granting it a Membership Action Plan».

Republicans say President Barack Obama has been too passive in responding to the crisis in Ukraine. 

US Senator Mario Rubio (R-FL), who is widely viewed as a 2016 presidential contender, called for a renewed push for NATO membership for Georgia.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN on March 2 that Obama should «stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators». Graham added that «Every time the President goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody’s eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression». As to him, «Georgia is trying to seek NATO admission through the membership action plan. Let’s accelerate Georgia’s admission into NATO», said Graham. «We abandoned our missile defense agreements with them to protect Europe from a rogue missile attack coming out of the Mid East. Russia backed Obama down. If I were President Obama, I would reengage Poland and the Czech Republic regarding missile defense».

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Fox News that «Putin is playing chess and I think we’re playing marbles». The Michigan congressman added that the Russians have been «running circles around us» in negotiations on issues like missile defense and Syria. Rogers said the White House should not attend the G-8 summit and should seek international sanctions.

And Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona – Obama’s 2008 general election opponent and a frequent critic of the President’s foreign policy – said in a statement that he is «deeply concerned» that Russia’s presence in Ukraine could grow if Obama does not go into detail about what exactly he’s going to do. McCain called on the U.S. to give economic aid to Ukraine and to install U.S. missiles in the Czech Republican. «President Obama said that Russia would face ‘costs’ if it intervened militarily in Ukraine», McCain said. «It is now essential for the President to articulate exactly what those costs will be and take steps urgently to impose them».

Imponderables and factors to reckon with

There are imponderables as the issue is considered, for instance, it remains unclear to what extent the Georgian Army as a whole meets NATO standards, as opposed to the battalions that have served since 2009 with the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. NATO has been enthusiastically engaged in the Alliance extension for the very idea of extension game. Now it has become an alliance of rag tag members with different potentials and different interests complicating to utmost any decision making process. Georgia will add more headache and burden without giving anything on return. Giving a MAP to Georgia is like cutting off the nose to spite the face. After all it was Georgian President Saakashvili who launched an attack in 2008. If Georgia were a NATO member those days, it would have done a real lip service to the Alliance putting it in an awkward position nobody needed, to put it most mildly. 

Russia still maintains a military presence within the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and regards NATO advancement as an immediate threat. Giving MAP to Georgia means constant confrontation with Russia adamant to stay firm asserting its foreign policy interests and ready to rebuff any attempts to intimidate or exert pressure on it. 

Speaking at a news conference in Brussels after the NATO-Russia Council on December 8, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, «I noticed that yesterday’s communiqué, which was adopted by the NATO foreign ministers, contains a term ‘aspirant countries’ and among them was named Georgia too. I openly warned our colleagues not to again push, wittingly or unwittingly, the current regime in Georgia towards repeating an adventure similar to the one of August, 2008… it was shortly after the [April, 2008 NATO] Bucharest summit, during which [NATO] imperatively stated, that Georgia will join NATO», Lavrov said.

Riccardo Alvaro, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, noted that as a general rule,NATO is unwilling to accept countries with such unresolved disputes because it «involves the risk of NATO being drawn into a military confrontation». «Common sense has it that NATO’s enlargement should take place wherever it enhances NATO’s security», he added. «If enlarging the Alliance means a spillover of insecurity into it, what’s the point?» 

The very process of NATO expansion is an irritant negatively affecting the security situation in Europe in general and bringing no dividends; NATO has no axe to grind here. 

This is the time to come up with well thought over and balanced initiatives to find a common understanding and ways to calm the tensions down, not pouring more fuel to the fire. Granting a MAP to Georgia is an obvious wrong step in the wrong direction at the wrong time. 

samedi, 15 mars 2014

Grand Puppetmaster Brzezinski

brz7087677_303,00.jpg

Grand Puppetmaster Brzezinski

Directing War Strategies from the Shadows

by MIKE WHITNEY
Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.”

- Stephen Kinzer, “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle”, Boston Globe

“We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas — a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”

- Russian President Vladimir Putin, Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 2007

The Obama administration’s rationale for supporting the fascist-led coup in Ukraine collapsed on Wednesday when a “hacked” phone call between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet revealed that the snipers who fired on protestors in Maidan Square in Kiev were not aligned with President Viktor Yanukovych, but with the protest leaders themselves. The significance of the discovery cannot be overstated since the Obama team has used the killing of protestors to justify its support for the new imposter government. Now it appears that members of the new government may be implicated in the killing of innocent civilians. This new information could force Obama to withdraw his support for the coup plotters in Kiev, which would derail the administration’s plan to remove Russia from the Crimea and expand NATO into Ukraine. Here’s a short recap of the details from an article in Russia Today:

“Estonian foreign ministry has confirmed the recording of his conversation with EU foreign policy chief is authentic. Urmas Paet said that snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders.

During the conversation, Paet stressed that “there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”….

The Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on its website, saying that the recording of the leaked telephone conversation between Paet and Ashton is “authentic.” (“Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers“, Russia Today)

To its credit, the UK Guardian published an article reporting the basic facts, but there’s been no coverage by the New York Times, the Washington Post or any of the major TV News networks. America’s elite media are engaged in a coordinated news blackout to keep people from seeing that the Obama administration and their EU collaborators are supporting a group of far-right extremists who were directly involved in the killing of civilians in order to topple a democratically-elected government. Here’s more from the same article:

“…there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet says…the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (“Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers“, Guardian)

There won’t be an investigation because an investigation would reveal the truth, and the truth would undermine Obama’s plan to install a puppet regime in Kiev. The new government has already shown that it is more than willing to do Washington’s bidding, that is, to impose austerity measures on the working people of Ukraine, to pay off fatcat bondholders in Berlin and Brussels via more extortionist IMF loans, to extend NATO to Russia’s border in contravention of agreements made with Bush the Elder following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and to pursue the crackpot dreams of global hegemony laid out in “The Grand Chessboard” by New World Order fantasist Zbigniew Brzezinski. These are the primary objectives of the present policy which could be upended by the allegations of foul play.

The smoking gun revelations of the hacked phone call came just hours before US officials indicated they were planning to increase their military footprint in Eastern Europe. According to the World Socialist Web Site:

“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon will boost joint training of NATO forces in Poland and step up NATO air patrols in the Baltics…US military officials said they were deploying six F-15 fighter jets and KC-135 transport planes. ….One guided-missile frigate, the USS Taylor, is still in a Black Sea port in Turkey after patrolling the region during the Sochi Olympics…

Turkish officials confirmed that they had given a US Navy warship permission to pass through the Bosphorus straits into the Black Sea, which borders Ukraine.” (“Amid Ukraine crisis, US launches military escalation in Eastern Europe”, World Socialist Web Site)

Also Russia Today reports that: “The guided missile destroyer, the USS Truxton, is heading to the Black Sea, for what the US military said is a “routine” deployment…The ship has a crew of about 300 and is part of an aircraft carrier strike group that left the US in mid-February.” (“US navy confirms missile destroyer USS Truxton approaching the Black Sea”, RT)

“Routine deployment”? So provoking a war with Russia is “routine”? Talk about understatement.

The military escalation occurs in an atmosphere of heightened tension between the two nuclear-armed powers and will certainly add to their mutual distrust. Hagel’s deployment is consistent with a plan for antagonizing Moscow that was proposed just days earlier in the Washington Post by the Obama administration’s ideological godfather, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Here’s a bit of what Brzezinski had to say in the article titled “What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”:

“…the West should promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. Uncertainty regarding its legal status could tempt Putin to repeat his Crimean charade…

“…the West should convey.. that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defensive capabilities. There should be no doubt left in Putin’s mind that an attack on Ukraine would precipitate a prolonged and costly engagement, and Ukrainians should not fear that they would be left in the lurch.

Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.” (“What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”, Washington Post)

“Adventurist”? Dr. Strangelove is calling the Kremlin adventurist when his recommendations would put NATO, the US and Moscow on hairtrigger alert increasing the chances of an error in judgment that could lead to thermonuclear war. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

But listen to the tone of Brzezinski’s op-ed. In just a few short paragraphs, the author–who many respect as a restrained and brilliant global strategist–refers to Putin as a thug, a Mafia gangster, Mussolini, and Hitler. I imagine if he had another paragraph to work with, he would have added Beelzebub Satan to the list.

This isn’t politics; it’s hysterics. It’s incendiary, jingoistic mumbo-jumbo intended to rouse the public and fan the flames of nationalism. It’s the same kind of self-righteous raving that precipitated the invasion of Iraq.

And what is Brzezinski saying?

Is he saying that events in the Crimea are a threat to US national security? Is he saying that the US should now feel free to apply the Monroe Doctrine everywhere across the planet, sticking our big nose wherever the president sees fit?

The trouble in the Crimea has nothing to do with the United States. We have no dog in this fight. This is about military expansion into Eurasia, this is about pipeline corridors and oil fields, this is about dismantling the Russian Federation and positioning multinational corporations and Wall Street investment banks in Asia for the new century. And, finally, this is an ego-driven crusade by an old man who wants to see his looneybin NWO global hegemony vision enacted before they cart him off on a marble slab. That’s what this is really about; the glorious new world disorder, the dystopian wetdream of thinktank patricians everywhere whose only purpose in life is to initiate wars that other-peoples-sons will have to fight.

Entering Ukraine into the corporate-western alliance is a critical part of Brzezinski’s masterplan. The basic strategy has been underway since the fall of the Berlin Wall when neoliberal carpetbaggers from the US assisted in the looting of the former Soviet state leaving Russia politically broken and economically destitute. Since then, US policy towards Russia has been overtly hostile, making every effort to encircle the oil-rich nation while positioning nuclear missile installations on its perimeter. Now Washington is using its fascist-backed coup in Ukraine to force Moscow to relinquish its grip on a region that is vital to its national security.

Here’s a brief excerpt from an interview with Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies and history emeritus at New York University on Monday on PBS Newshour. Cohen helps to clarify what is really going on viv a vis the US and Russia:

“What we’re watching today is the worst kind of history being made, the descent of a new Cold War divide between West and East in Europe, this time not in faraway Berlin, but right on Russia’s borders through Ukraine. That will be instability and the prospect of war for decades to come for our kids and our grandchildren. The official version is that Putin is to blame; he did this. But it simply isn’t true. This began 20 years ago when Clinton began the movement of NATO toward Russia, a movement that’s continued.

…the fundamental issue here is that, three or four years ago, Putin made absolutely clear he had two red lines…One was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. (Putin would not allow NATO in Georgia) The other was in Ukraine. We crossed both. You got a war in Georgia in 2008, and you have got today in Ukraine because we, the United States and Europe, crossed Putin’s red line.” (PBS News Hour)

There’s no doubt who is to blame for the present conflict in Cohen’s mind. It’s Washington.

So, here we are, between a rock and a hard place: Putin cannot back down on an issue that’s crucial to national security, and Washington is more determined than ever to pull Ukraine into –what Henry Kissinger calls–”a cooperative international system.” (aka–global capitalist rule) That means there’s going to be a war.

On Thursday, Crimea MPs voted unanimously to hold a referendum on whether the region should become a part of Russia or not. The balloting will take place in 10 days although Obama has already said that he will not honor the results. Apparently, other countries need to get the green-light from Washington before they conduct their elections now. This is how ridiculous things have gotten.

In 2008, Brzezinski revealed the real motives behind US aggression in Central Asia in an article that appeared in the Huffington Post that dealt primarily with the dust up in Georgia. (where Putin deployed Russian troops to defend Russian speaking civilians in South Ossetia.) Here’s what Brzezinski had to say:

“The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin’s control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.

In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.

If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine.” (“Brzezinski: Russia’s invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin’s attack on Finland”; Huffington Post)

Huh? It sounds a lot like Brzezinski thinks that oil should be his. Or maybe he thinks it belongs to the western oil giants; is that it?

So we’re not dealing with national security, sovereignty or spheres of influence here. What we’re really talking about is “access to oil.” Not only that, but Brzezinski is being quite blunt in his assertion that “the West” –as he calls it–has a legitimate claim to the resources on other people’s land. Where’d he come up with that one?

In another interview on Kavkacenter.com, in 2008, Brzezinski sounded the same alarm with a slightly different twist. Here’s an excerpt from the article titled ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia”:

“Brzezinski said the United States witnessed “cases of possible threats by Russia… motivated not by some territorial disputes….but caused by intention to take control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline”.

“If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited”, said Brzezinski …. he stated that Russia will try to consolidate its monopoly on these markets and will use all existing political and economic levers, including “politically motivated cessation of energy supplies” in Europe and Baltic states.

“Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies”, considers the political scientist.” (“Zbigniew Brzezinski: ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia” kavkacenter.com)

Putin is not isolating anyone and he’s certainly not taking over anyone’s damned pipeline. He’s the president of Russia. He sells oil and makes money, that’s how the system works. It’s called capitalism. But the oil is theirs. The natural gas is theirs. The pipelines are theirs. Not ours. Get over it!

Don’t kid yourself, it’s all about oil. Oil and power. The United States imperial ambitions are thoroughly marinated in oil, access to oil, and control of oil. Without oil, there’s no empire, no dollar hegemony, no overbloated, bullyboy military throwing weaker countries against the wall and extorting tribute. Oil is the coin of the realm, the path to global domination.

Putin has audacity to think that the oil beneath Russian soil belongs to Russia. Washington wants to change his mind about that. And that’s why the situation in Ukraine is so dangerous, because the voracious thirst for oil is pushing us all towards another world war.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.